Imagine, for a moment, that U.S. troops invading Iraq had, as they neared Baghdad, been fired on by an artillery unit using shells filled VX nerve gas — an attack that would have lasted minutes before a U.S. aircrew had taken out the battery, and may have brought a horrible death to a handful of American soldiers. Imagine, further, that the conquering troops had later discovered two warehouses full of VX and mustard gas shells. And later, that inspectors in a science lab had discovered a refrigerator full of Botulinum toxin or even anthrax.
The Administration and its allies in the punditocracy would have “proved” their case for war, and the media would have hailed President Bush as the kind of Churchillian visionary that he imagines himself to be. And goodness knows what new adventures the Pentagon ideologues would have immediately begun planning.
Now, ask yourself, had the above scenario unfolded and the “case for war” (on the terms accepted by the media and the Democrats) been proven, would Iraq look any different today? Would it be any less of a bloodbath; any less of a quagmire for U.S. troops; any less of a geopolitical disaster; any less of a drain on U.S. blood and treasure? Would the U.S. mainland or U.S. interests and allies worldwide be any safer today? In short, would the Iraq invasion seem any less of a catastrophic strategic blunder had the U.S. discovered some caches of unconventional weapons in Iraq?
The answer to all of those questions is obviously no.
And it’s from that point that we must begin our discussion on Iran, and the media’s role in preparing the American public for another disastrous war of choice. The “necessity” in the American public mind to go to war in Iraq was established through the mass media — a failure for which there has been precious little accounting. But that failure runs far deeper than is typically acknowledged even by critics: It was not simply a case of the media failing to properly and critically interrogate the spurious claims by the Administration of Iraq’s Weapons of Mass Destruction capability. Sure, even the likes of France and Germany suspected that Saddam may, in fact, have still had a few piles of chemical munitions left over from the Iran-Iraq war. The point, however, is that they did not see these as justifying a war. They recognized from the outset that invading Iraq would cause more problems than it would solve.
The more important failure of the U.S. media, then, is its failure to question the basic proposition that if Iraq had, indeed, had unconventional weapons, then an invasion and occupation of that country was a wise and prudent course of action.
Of course many of the decision-makers in the U.S. media in the wake of 9/11 were scared and confused, and looking for John Wayne-style authority figures for comfort — read back now and you’ll find some astounding toadying up to the self-styled tough guys of the Administration: Bill Keller’s wet-kiss profile of Paul Wolfowitz in the New York Times suggested to me a man playing out Robert Mitchum’s epiphany in The Green Berets, the jaded liberal recognizing the harsh truths of John Wayne’s approach to making the world safe for freedom. And Donald Rumsfeld’s loquacious buffoonery created a comforting sense of certainty among a liberal media intelligentsia suddenly desperate to embrace an imperial mythology, and in the case of the George Packers and Peter Beinarts, to render it profound as a narrative of global liberation. Others simply preferred to avoid anything that might have demagogues branding them “un-American,” for fear of losing ad dollars.
That may help explain the failure, but it does not excuse it.
The fact that carnival barkers like Kristol and Beinart continue to be touted as having opinions worth heeding on these matters is ample evidence that the media has either learned little, or else is more dedicated to a kind of edutainment vaudeville than in empowering the American people to make informed foreign policy choices.
Beinart, in a mawkish attempt to account for himself in the excellent Bill Moyers documentary Buying the War, offers up this little gem: “The argument in the fall of 2002 was not mostly about the facts, it was about a whole series of ideas about what would happen if we invaded.”
Exactly. The fact that Beinart and company were wrong on the facts was only part of the problem. More importantly, it was their ideas about the use of force and its consequences that proved so disastrously flawed. And most of the decision-makers in the mainstream media did not bother to challenge the basic proposition that if Saddam had certain categories of weapons, then an invasion was necessary and beneficial.
The very idea that there are certain categories of weapons that draw down a red mist over rational discussion of geopolitical options is an exceedingly dangerous one — that should be one of the key lessons drawn from Iraq. And that’s exactly what’s being cooked up over Iran, too.
The very same crew of neocons and liberal hawks and the Israeli political establishment and its allies in Washington, are goading America to attack Iran. They insist Iran is going hell for leather to acquire nuclear weapons, and allowing it to do so represents a mortal threat to the West, Arab moderates and Israel. And just when a convenient excuse was needed for the U.S. failure in Iraq and Afghanistan, wouldn’t you know it, it’s those darn Iranians “interfering”. Don’t even think about discussing, what, are you Neville Chamberlain or something? Don’t you know it’s 1938 all over again?
Of course, not all of it is as plain silly as the paragraph above.
(For the record:
McCain delivers that one as if it’s a last word, but it shouldn’t be. He’s trying to effect the familiar demagoguery of narrowing options in the way the Iran issue is defined in U.S. public discussion: If threats and sanctions can’t dissuade Iran from enriching uranium, then military action becomes the “last resort.” The idea that Iran enriching uranium is a “red line” is not questioned. An irreversible slide to war in the U.S. is being carefully constructed by those who are out to persuade the American public that if Tehran refuses to run up a white flag, military action — unfortunate as it may be — becomes essential. And the idea would be to have the outgoing U.S. Administration to do the job, its disregard for law (international and domestic) well established, as is its propensity to orchestrate disaster. The mythology last time around was that invading Iraq would transform the Middle East in a healthy way; this time it is that a “surgical strike” taking out Iran’s nuclear facilities or Revolutionary Guard facilities would settle the matter. Hardly. Iran would respond in an asymmetrical fashion, that would cost many thousands of American lives in Iraq and elswhere over the next decade, might disrupt world oil supplies and more. Together with the Iraq misadventure, it would ensure that the Bush Administration leaves a legacy that might be a latterday equivalent of the Hundred Years War between England and France; an open-ended conflict with the population of most of the Muslim world that the U.S. can’t really win.
So, the basic question on Iran should be exactly the same one the U.S. failed to ask on Iraq: Will military action against Iran leave the U.S. and its interests and allies in the Middle East in a more secure position or in greater peril. That, really, is the only question that matters.
There’s very little discussion in the U.S. media of why Iran might seek nuclear weapons, what alternatives it might have — and might choose to use should it be attacked — and whether the environment can be altered to persuade it that it doesn’t need nuclear weapons. What are Iran’s strategic needs, and can they be accomodated in a framework acceptable to others that at the same time accomodates its interests? And so on.
Intead, we’re essentially asked to believe that Iran wants nuclear weapons in order to destroy Israel and satisfy some sort of doomsday fantasy. The evidence for this is usually misquoted statements from President Ahmedinajad, and suggestions that he is personally inclined towards an eschatalogical world view (as if the same were not true for President Bush!). The fact is that Ahmedinajad does not actually rule Iran, and would never be in a position to decide on the use of nuclear weapons even if the portrait painted of him were true. Iran’s nuclear program has been in place for decades; Ahmedinajad is unlikely to survive the next Iranian election. (Yes, Iran actually holds elections, at least for the presidency — that may be one reason the presidency doesn’t run the country!) And the regime’s primary concern is to ensure its survival, a principle that governs even its proxy activities abroad — for example, it is conventional wisdom even on the right that Hizballah would attack Israel and U.S. targets in response to an attack on Iran; i.e. their purpose in the Iranian strategic doctrine is asymmetrical deterrence.
It would certainly be quite understandable in the strategic environment in which Iran operates to seek a nuclear weapon; some would argue they’d be stupid not to. After all, three of their arch-rivals, the U.S., Israel and Pakistan have such weapons. And they’ve seen such capability may have helped North Korea evade U.S. military action. The recent U.S. nuclear deal with India, moreover, underscores the fact that Washington is unashamedly selective in applying the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and has always ignored the treaty’s premise, i.e. that other countries would refrain from acquiring nuclear weapons in order to allow those that currently have them to disarm. Disarm? The U.S. is the only nation ever to have visited nuclear terror on another nation, a war crime — yes, it is a war crime to deliberately target a civilian population — the discussion of which is quite simply taboo in America. Instead, in the U.S. it is still acceptable to talk of actually using nuclear weapons: Hillary Clinton castigates Barak Obama for ruling out their use against al-Qaeda in Pakistan or Afghanistan!
States do not pursue weapons systems as ends in themselves; and states are hardwired to ensure their own survival. It is to that end that they acquire weapons systems, to protect, enhance or advance their own strategic position and even up the odds against more powerful rivals. As everything from the Cold War to the current deal with North Korea demonstrate, the only way to avoid nuclear conflict is to address the concerns and fears on both sides that might spark such a conflict. Weapons systems are dangerous, but not as dangerous as the conflicts that might result in them being used. And we should also get used to the idea that the globalization of technology on the current strategic landscape makes nuclear weapons likely to become the norm among states — after all, the existing eight nuclear weapons states have no intention of relinquishing theirs, so why would any states that anticipate being in conflict with any of them refrain from pursuing those weapons when the opportunity presents itself?
It is the conflicts that fuel the drive for nuclear weapons that are more dangerous than the weapons themselves, and the problem of those weapons can’t be addressed separately from those conflicts. An Iran bombed to destroy its nuclear power plants would likely be far more dangerous to the U.S. and its allies over the next couple of decades than an Iran that had nuclear weapons within reach might be. The only way to diminish the danger of an escalating confrontation with Iran — which is what bombing its nuclear facilities would certainly do — is to address the conflict between it and its rivals directly, and seek a modus vivendi that can manage their conflicting interests. Iran has shown itself to be ready to engage in such dialogue; it is the Bush administration that has demurred.
At this stage, the U.S. media corps that facilitated the Iraq catastrophe ought to be asking the question, can the Bush Administration do any worse than it has already done in plunging the Middle East into bloody chaos and in destroying countless American and Arab lives — and doing irreversible damage to U.S. interests across the planet. The answer, of course, is yes, but only if the U.S. media once again enables it.
Pingback: University Update - John McCain - Asking the Wrong Questions on Iran
Tony,
Great column. You’re right that this is not 1938, and in fact, I think it’s more like 1913. We’re one bullet away.
Actually, I’ve been deeply worried about a potential war for a while now, but when I try to convince my liberal friends they are highly skeptical. They say that Bush is fast losing political power, that he’s a lame duck, and that once the march to war seriously gets started, people won’t buy it. How would you refute this (if you disagree)?
Pingback: University Update - Fergie - Asking the Wrong Questions on Iran
Pingback: Suckers born every minute at Antony Loewenstein
Great post!
The consequences of an attack on Iran would be catastrophic for the US.
Yet I put its likelihood at over 50%.
Quickly the arguments for and against:
AGAINST: Sanity
FOR:
1. Bush’s redemptive strike. His “Osirak” will see him leave the stage with the glow of a military triumph. (Hillary or Mitt can clean up the mess.) Remember that the guy’s last “triumph” was March 2003. He has 16 months left for glory.
2. All the candidates (except Paul and Kucinich) will applaud. Triply so in fact: (i) in time of war, one cheers, not kvetches at, one’s C-in-C; (ii) Iran’s nukes”have to go”; (iii) AIPAC wants it.
3. Congress has already authorized an attack against Iran. In May the House tabled motions requiring Bush to seek congressional authorization for an attack. WIth the IRGC’s designation as a terrorist organization, the 9/11 Force Authorization is quite enough for Bush to do as he pleases. (Not that he’s ever let the constitution get in the way of his desires anyway)
4. The media hate a war of IEDs and blinded soldiers. But they love the video game sort that only the USAF and the Navy can provide. And think of the morale booster a coordinated flattening of Iranian military installations will give Chris Matthews a chance to tell us again how much women love this bombing campaign.
And then what?
Tony has it exactly right.
I thought in 2004 that the next president might withdraw from Iraq. Now I know for certain that he/she won’t.
If Iraq is Vietnam, then Iran might be Cambodia. Maybe before giving Adm Fallon the green light, Bush can have Dr K over to watch “Patton” together, the way Nixon did before bombing the living daylights out of Cambodia.
Pingback: Annals of the Iran-War Clown Car § Unqualified Offerings
By re-electing Bush in 2004, the American people have reaffirmed my faith that they are ‘STUPID’ enough to be swayed away by another media blitz and another disastrous war campaign in the middle east. They still don’t have a freaking idea (they hardly care anyway) about the open wounds of the Arab hearts and minds, and what another war would mean to them. A democratic congress or senate can do nothing to stop this campaign other than threatening to stop supplying money for more war – and we all know the two words Dick Cheney has for them … !
Among the democratic candidates, no candidate has the guts to say anything constructive about Iran … and even less about mollycoddling Israel & Saudi Arabia with $50 billion in arms over the decade. It appears it has been already been decided and dictated what would happen. We are just watching the show. The next government (unless Kuchinich pulls a Bush) can’t do much to alter the foreign policy of this country. Joe Biden may have ‘some’ plan for Iraq – but I’m surprised why no one asks him about Iran.
Obama has always been my personal favorite, because of his inspiring message and because he favors reaching out to the Islamic World instead of bombing it. But his comments about Pakistan worry me. It seems that mainstream viewpoints on the War on Terror are ossifying, just as they did around unconditional aid to Israel.
ASA, you seem to like Dennis Kucinich, but do you really think he has the answers either? His “science of diplomacy” amounts to negotiating with dictators reviled by their people, and often completely divorced and insulated from the “wounds of the Arab hearts and minds.”
Shlomo, didn’t want to use Tony’s space for our discussion – but just wanted to clear the idea that Kucinich is my favorite. He is not. I think he is too focused on middle America (his choice I guess) and little on the world. He would probably cut down foreign interaction – but the reason of my comment was whether any of the ‘mainstream’ candidates would take any serious step to change the overall military-threat-backs-up-diplomacy tactic of the US of A.
I am actually not a keen follower of US domestic politics. I am just appalled how the neocons seem to have a magic hat of tricks – and the know-how to keep the people of this country mesmerized. Nobody asks the right questions. No body! No journalist has the guts to grill a senator. When a country’s best news source is a fake-news comedy show (three cheers to Jon Stewart!) – what can you expect? Now I want to ask Tony – why can’t you air the same questions in your Time columns!!! You have to … journos like you are the last line of hope before all hell breaks loose again!!!
I wonder what the soldiers and officers in the military think about all of this? Surely some will refuse to press the button.
Iran is KILLING OUR TROOPS with impunity! This CANNOT be allowed to continue! Iran is a state sponsor of TERRORISM! Iran is a LOOSE CANNON regime that is building nuclear weapons!
And here is the clincher; Deterrence requires that the adversary NOT be suicidal!
Hence, deterrence CANNOT work with Iran!
There is no point in delaying the INEVITABLE clash with Iran…the ONLY solution is to BOMB IRAN til they cry UNCLE!
Sung to the melody of the Beach Boys “Barbara Ann”…
BOMB BOMB BOMB IRAN!
Yes, we know attacking Iran is stupid.
Let’s move beyond that.
Because it IS a done deal now.
Robert Baer in Time quotes an Administration official as saying that Bush absolutely WILL attack Iran at some point – if not because of the nonexistent nuclear weapons programs, than because of the nonexistent evidence for Iran “killing US troops.” (Amusing that the answer to “Iran killing US troops” is to allow Iran to kill MORE US troops! But I digress…)
The arms sales to Saudi Arabia and Israel are BRIBES – to Saudi Arabia to not criticize the US attack on Iran, and to Israel to actually be willing to INITIATE the attack on Iran (which Israel wanted the US to do so it would get the blame when things go badly – as they will, and Israel knows it, but doesn’t care as long as Iran is badly damaged as well.)
So the war is a done deal.
What are you going to do to stop it, given that you can’t get a Democrat to voice the word “impeachment”, and nobody in the US government is listening to any of you any more – if they ever did?
Let me spell out for the readers what is going to happen when Bush attacks Iran.
1) Iran will retaliate against US troops in Iraq. The scores of thousands of Iranian agents already in Iraq (according to Colonel Pat Lang) will coordinate with the Shia militias to cut US supply lines from Kuwait. Within ninety days, the US forces in Iraq will be out of water, food, fuel, and ammunition. According to military expert William Lind, there is a good chance we could LOSE – not be defeated, but LOSE – much of the US military forces in Iraq.
2) The war will drive the price of gas to $5, $10 or more per gallon. Have you thought about what your gas guzzler is going to cost you when this happens?
3) The cost of the Iraq war alone today is $10-12 billion PER MONTH. The added cost of the Iran war will be in the neighborhood of $20-30 billion PER MONTH.
4) China, pissed off at being cut off from Iranian oil and gas, will dump the US dollar, of which it holds trillions. Bye bye, US economy…Your job then will be worth squat…
5) Given the military disaster in Iraq, the exhaustion of the US military, and the shortage of things like ammunition, you can be sure that a draft will be instituted very quickly. Your sons and daughters WILL be going into the military, NOT to college – where they will die by IED and anti-tank weapons, because the Iranians will use the same tactics as the Iraqis are using and as Hizballah used effectively against the Israelis last summer.
6) US casualties will rise to hundreds or even thousands of dead, and tens of thousand wounded PER MONTH. That is, YOUR sons and daughters (unless you’re a politician, of course.)
7) It is possible that Arab terrorists will begin operating in the United States. After a few car bombs clean out Times Square (the US is MADE for car bombs!) and some suicide bombers blow themselves up on your transit station during rush hour, I suspect you’ll be more than willing to grant Bush his “martial law” statutes and even the cancellation of the 2008 or later elections “until the emergency is over”.
8) Iran will be devastated, hundreds of thousands or even millions of its civilians killed. Nonetheless, by following the Vietnam strategy and Fourth Generation Warfare, Iran will bleed the US militarily, economically, and geopolitically to death over the next ten years. It will make Vietnam and Iraq look like a walk in the park.
And this disaster is due to occur within the next six to 18 months.
So what are you going to do about it?
My prediction: nothing.
We are talking about trying to stop attacks/invasion of Iran ( to no avail). Three years from now, we will talk of stopping attacks/invasion of Pakistan (to no avail, either). If we can possibly survive that, we will then be talking of stopping attacks/invasion of China. America is governed by madmen; end-times Christians, uber-paranoid Zionists, and morally blind partisan hacks. Talk will not halt this madness. The time will come soon, when we must take a stand.
Re: 1938
You have it backwards, we are the nazis.
Thank you, Tony, for an excellent analysis. My guess is that if we go to war with Iran, it will be through Cheney’s “end-run” scenario — e.g. 1) a “small” US attack on a Revolutionary Guard camp in Iran triggers an Iranian missile attack on a US base killing Am soldiers; or 2) Israel launches an attack in which US denies complicity but Iranian response to Israel and to US soldiers in Iraq causes multiple deaths. In any case of this sort, Bush could get a Congressional majority to vote for war on Iran the next day, and the full war would be on.
Our group in Cleveland, Cleveland Peace Action, believe that we are not powerless. We are meeting with Congressional and Senate staff and making several points:
1) Current policy (sanctions, accusations, threats and provocations) will put Congress in a political bind (see scenarios above) where most will have to vote for war on Iran.
2) We lay out the disastrous “day-after” results of a war, as one of the respondents did above, and in addition, point out that ALL our progressive domestic and environmental programs will go down the drain for years to come.
3) We make the point that we should NOT be forced into a “sanctions with pre-conditions” option vs. war: that experts have proposed workable deterence/inspection/security guarantee options which DO bring security to US, Israel AND Iran.
4) We ask for immediate passage of outstanding bills requiring Congressional approval of war on Iran – as a first step. We also ask for immediate Foreign Policy Committee exploration of these workable no-preconditions negotiating options; and Intelligence Committee exploration of real evidence for and against an Iranian nuclear program; also of Saudi/Jordanian aid to Sunni insurgents (which probably dwarfs Iranian military aid); and of US clandestine “meddling” in Iran, and to get these results out to the public.
5) We are putting letters and op-eds into our local media along these lines.
So far, we have had an “interested” hearing. Will we be too little or too late? Don’t know. Would like to hear from others on positive ideas — not just hand wringing.
Thank you for an excellent and timely post, Tony. However, two assertions over estimate our national security elites’ regard for the national interest:
“Will military action against Iran leave the U.S. and its interests and allies in the Middle East in a more secure position or in greater peril.”
“States do not pursue weapons systems as ends in themselves; and states are hardwired to ensure their own survival.”
As Mr. Hack notes in pt. 3) of his excellent tabulation above, Operation TPAjax2 promises to double the income of those our beltway errand boys (and girls) serve so well. Regardless of the consequences, they presume themselves quite immune. They’re quite mad, you know.
From my vantage point up north in Canada, I find most of this chit-chat unbelievable. The Iraq war has cost you Americans dearly, financially. In about 30 days your Congress will have to up the authorization for borrowing monies from 9 to maybe 11 trillion dollars. That’s over $30,000 per man woman and child. Another war with Iran and then with Pakistan will place the USA at the whim of China, who aready holds about 2.2 trillion of your debt. Of course, you may choose to not pay up when the chits are called in, and then financila hell will break loose. The USA does not have the financial where-with-all to go about the world just to keep the “bombs bursting in air”.
Great piece–and three quick points:
1. The chemical & biological weapons that Saddam might’ve had, would’ve been supplied by the US when the US sided with Iraq during the Iraq-Iran war.
2. Iran is not a militarily weak puppy like Iraq and Afghanistan were. It can respond, not only asymmetrically, but with conventional weapons such as an array of cruise missiles that could sink a carrier and put a lot of squids in the water.
3. There are at least 25,000 Jews living in Iran, some say 40,000, living mostly in Tehran. There are 30 synagogues and half a dozen kosher butcher shops. These people have resisted Israeli bribes to emigrate because they like it where they are. If the mullahs hated Jews, wouldn’t they start at home?
Pretty good piece, as far as it goes, however:
Has it not been established for a long time that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were military targets? This does not excuse the action, it is just to make a point.
In my home town of Madison, Wisc., there has been annual ceremonies marking the bombings.
An excellent article, but I think the drumbeaters of war have already found a new target — Pakistan. It appears that Pakistan is the next target and a low-level war has already started there. Musharraf has obligingly pitted the Pakistan Army against the tribes of Waziristan and it is only a matter of time when he will be asked to ask for US help. It is a sad turn of events and there is nothing anyone can do to stop it. Contrary to what most people think, the media is not fooled by the administration the media pundits are actually the instigators. Haven’t you noticed all the questions about whether or not we should Nuke Pakistan’s tribal belt. In every debate somehow Pakistan’s name show up. The bugaboo of OBL and AQ Khan are brought out. I even saw a statement by a Washington Post journalist about the possibility of OBL exploding a nuclear bomb in a Pakistani cave next year. Can you believe that? All these questions come from the media pundits in order to prepare us for the next war. Can we stop the next war? The answer sadly is probably not.
Maybe someone else will want to weigh in on this, but I am disappointed in Baer’s piece in Time (“Prelude to an attack on Iran”)
The money graf is the last one:
“And what do we do if just the opposite happens — a strike on Iran unifies Iranians behind the regime? An Administration official told me it’s not even a consideration. “IRGC IED’s are a casus belli for this administration. There will be an attack on Iran.”
Quite an eye-catcher, I’d say. And I am ready to believe that.
But what’s the evidence Baer gives us?
He quotes a CIA guy in Iraq: “”The Iranians are making them [EFPs] End of story.” His argument is only a state is capable of manufacturing the EFP’s, which involves a complicated annealing process.”
And then Baer adds: “t… is that the IRGC has had a long, established history of killing Americans, starting with the attack on the Marines in Beirut in 1983.”
If Baer, the former CIA operative, was trying to give the CIA a bad name he couldn’t do a better job.
That only a state can produce EFPs is total BS. In fact, EFPs are easy to make; they are cheap; most of their components are available in the open market. Last April, the US discovered several factories producing them in Iraq (near Ad Diwaniyah). This does not mean that Iran is not shipping some to Iraq: it means that Baer’s CIA friend is bullshitting us.
Now re. the 1983 Beirut bombing, words matter. No, Mr Baer, the IRGC does not have a long, established record of killing Americans. Just as the Americans do not have a long, established record of killing Palestinians: they help Israelis do that. And the IRGC helped Lebanese do that. Not the same.
Baer writes: “An awe and shock campaign, lite, if you will. ”
Awe and shock? Is that CIA way of saying “shock and awe” ?
I actually disagree with Mas’s comments. Musharraf will never ask the U.S. to crush the Waziristani Islamists, and he will never do it himself. He pays patronage to the radical Islamists; in turn, they create a facade of democracy that legitimizes Musharraf despite his marginalization of the Pakistani majority. Maybe the radical Islamists have become a bit stonger than Musharraf wanted, but even now he can point to them as a reason NOT to hold elections. They are very convenient for him, and he for them, despite the recent disagreement at Lal Masjid. If this invasion were to happen, it would happen also against Musharraf’s wishes.
Jim S. I assume you’re being sarcastic.
Pingback: In Which Tony Karon Asks the Right Questions on Iran « I’m Not Going to Do This Every Day
Of course, one should always note that these guys have always gotten 1938 wrong, too. Chamberlain and Daladier faced a difficult choice: whether England and France, not yet prepared for war, should go to war to protect Czechoslovakia when the ethnic Germans in that country indeed had legitimate complaints–notwithstanding that they were being used by Hitler to justify his aims.
In the end, one can’t blame Chamberlain and Daladier for what they did–conciliatory diplomacy while undertaking massive rearmament programs. Nobody knows that all that Churchill did was to bluster…while the battle of Britain was won with the arms produced from Chamberlain’s programs.
21 aug 2007
robert mitchum does not appear in the john wayne movie, “The Green Berets”.
Excellent piece, Tony. Thank you.
I hope you crank it up with a couple of follow-up articles on the same topic.
I sincerely believe your words could make a difference, could make the media pay attention. You have the bonafides: senior editor for TIME, lived in Israel, Jewish.
And the issue concerning Iran *is* Israel, the third rail in NYC journalism.
While you’re at it, consider the influence of the Christian mega-churches and John Hagee. Hagee’s “Christians United for Israel” (CUFI) now teaches members how to lobby Congress to bomb Iran. (DC seminar: July 14-19, 2007) Hagee claims he reaches 70,000 people. jewsonfirst.com is going after him, but that’s not enough.
At the risk of sounding hyperbolic in my praise of your writing (READ: thinking) I really believe you can make a difference. You could change things. But you need to get out your spears. In earnest.
M. Stanley: Do you think he meant David Janssen, who played George Beckworth?
Oh. And another thing, Tony.
Why is no one in your biz (media) doing an in-depth look at who the defense contractor players are? A real look. In the US, Israel, and wherever else. The monies involved. The increase in revenues since 2002. We need a chart to see who’s benefiting.
I looked up some of them the other day when I had access to a friend’s LexisNexis account. You can’t find this stuff on the web easily, if at all. The increases in revenues are shocking. One Colorado firm went from $5.2bn to $6.5bn in a year. An Israeli firm got $6bn to make 1,000 armored vehicles. They hire ex-military guys, and they keep this gravy train loaded.
Tony, a column like this says all I wanted to say on my blog, but better! I think you are Jewish, and I am not, though I am sympathetic to Israel (but not the occupation). I admire the way you care more about a calm look at the truth than in giving in to existential fears of crazed mullahs nuking Israel. Your lucid article gives the proper response to that scenario. The world can only survive if thinking individualists like you (and hopefully I) abandon the fears and prejudices of tribe and class and try to be rational and fair instead. This may sometimes require understanding our adversary’s point of view. How few people are willing to do this!
The biggest problem I see of American policy is we talk about Iran – we don’t talk to them.
It is far easier to wip up a ferver when Big Brother is the sole decider of good and bad – who gets heard – who gets excluded. The simplistic — He is the next Hitler and must be stopped! plays well to mindless masses.
It does not help that the “Religion of Peace” has so far protected rather then stopped one of the greatest mass murders of the last hundred years.
American president Abe Lincoln during the American Civil war observed that “both sides claim God as their ally – at least one and probably both are wrong.”
It matters not which side is doing it, evil is as evil does.
My apologies, David Janssen doing a kind of poor man’s Robert Mitchum…
“The simplistic — He is the next Hitler and must be stopped! plays well to mindless masses.”
‘The next Hitler’ is Binyamin Netanyahu’s metaphor. Ditto ‘this is 1938’. [Google it.]
No one in the NYC/DC press had the balls to take him on for that. Unfortunately, if we do nuke Iran and millions die of radiation from Iran to Singapore as predicted by the Pentagon, a virulent form of anti-semitism will spring up overnight.
Netanyahu will have his self-fulfilling prophecy.
Thank you Tony for an excellent and well thought out article. It is very much appreciated.
I think there is an additional important point to be made. As George Kennan remarked in the lead up to the Iraq.war “you know where you begin. You never know where you are going to end.”
We don’t , in fact, know what will happen in the event of an attack on Iran, especially if it’s a full scale attack on Iran’s military and nuclear facilities. The outcome not predictable. As one writer above noted, Iran could respond by attacking vulnerable US troops in Iraq, or by launching missile strikes at US ships in the Gulf. What would happen if they manage to kill thousands of US soldiers in Iraq or sink am aircraft carrier? How would the US respond? It’s conceivable that the response would be with nuclear weapons. We know from Seymour Hersh’s reporting that the Bush administration has at least considered the use of nuclear weapons. It might not start out as nuclear attack, but an escalation to nuclear war is always a possibility.
One has to wonder if people in positions of responsibility, especially in the media, have really thought any of this through.
MAJOR TYPO:
I wrote “Hagee claims he reaches 70,000 people” at August 21st, 2007 2:04 pm.
IT SHOULD READ:
Hagee claims he reaches 70,000,000 people.
Tony,
Thanks for focusing on the campaign by the USA and ISRAEL to attack Iran. It seems elements with access to
the levers of power in the above named pathocracies have made the decision to attack Iran and are now carrying out a psyops war on American and Israeli citizens attempting to frighten them into supporting this criminal action. What could be the objective of this doomed campaign? Could it be that a cabal of psychopaths are using the looming carnage and chaos as a vehicle to futher their totalitarian ambitions in Palestine and the USA? I think the question
we should be asking is whether the people in power are psychologically deviant and should be restrained by more normal men and women. I am linking to a websight based on Andrew Lobaczewski’s underground study of the psychological deviance of the men and women in power in the Soviet Empire. Psychopathic types lack empathy and capacity to visualize the suffering and disaster their orders bring upon the heads of mankind . Ponerology-The Study of Evil Adjusted for Political Purposes is the name of his book. The web link is:http://ponerology.blogspot.com/
Hello.
Perhaps there are certain beings who want more and more war on earth because they think wars will help to persuade humans to embrace a planned PSEUDOCHRISTOS related deception or something like that. Maybe there are Gog and Magog related lies being told and maybe stuff related to grigori and nephilim has been covered up in a way for a reason.
-Jacob
Pingback: www.benwhite.org.uk: the blog » Blog Archive » Asking the wrong questions on Iran…
The real heresy is acceptance of the false alternatives of hegemony or extinction. (Hat tip to Chomsky on this idea: He called it “Hegemony or Survival.”) Implicit in this heresy is the belief that a world that cannot be remade by America is a world that cannot be lived in by America. This heresy is the greatest threat to the world and American democracy, not the Islamists.
No I was just mentioning a fact. And trying to be a little thoughtful.
For all his inflammatory statement, “Israel torn from the pages of history/eliminated from the face of the earth”, Iranian President Ahmadinejad has no real clout to speak of, but oh what star power he has in the hands of cunning fear mongers, as good as a smoking gun about to metamorphosize into a mushroom cloud. The real power rests with Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei who presides over the Guardian Council, the army of which has been condemned by President Bush as a terrorist organization. Another body of Iranian mullahs makes up the Expediency Council, and together both, in an Iranian style checks and balance process decide on state policy, fatwas and the like. The Supreme Leader is in charge of pushing the nuclear button, not the clown with the goofy smile. When back in 1976, the Shah of Iran began to build Iranian nuclear facilities, it was with full approval from the US. With Gerald Ford in the White House, the men that gave him the green light were none other than Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney oh irony of ironies. Apart from an obsession with regime change, and Israel’s deepest darkest desires, could it be that there is an oil slick on the war tattoo’s steel drum??
I want to go back to the earlier part of the thread where people were discussing who’s going to stop the war machine. I agree with the consensus that the corporate media and the Tweedledum-ocrats are going to play along with Bush and Olmert and their merry band of sociopaths. This means it’s up to the american people to stop them. The anti-war movement is simply going to have to get serious about physically stopping the war machine through direct action of a peaceful and non-violent nature (hopefully). It’s time for people who believe in peace to start making real nuisances of ourselves, especially in the states. I don’t think we Canadians are that far behind – we are already participating with troops on the ground in Afghanistan and in Iraq through the provision of weapons and weapon systems. How much worse do things have to get before we start chaining ourselves to the munition factory gates?
Jim S. Sorry but I don’t get your point. Hiroshima was an army depot but that’s not why it was chosen. It was picked because the surrounding hills ensured that the entire city would be destroyed. I’ll quote from the Target Committee, Los Alamos, 1945:
“[Hiroshima] is a good radar target and it is such a size that a large part of the city could be extensively damaged. . There are adjacent hills which are likely to produce a focussing effect which would considerably increase the blast damage. ”
Until it was vetoed at the last minute, the first choice was Kyoto (zero military value). I’ll quote again:
“From the psychological point of view there is the advantage that Kyoto is an intellectual center for Japan and the people there are more apt to appreciate the significance of such a weapon as the gadget. (Classified as an AA Target)”
The purpose of the H&N was psychological: the very definition of terrorism, in fact. Tony has it exactly right.
Thanks Bernard, I agree — clearly the purpose of deploying a weapon of mass destruction was precisely that, mass destruction. Regardless of whatever military target there might have been in the city, destroying the whole thing in this way was an act of terror. One Japanese city was destroyed, and then a second, with the objective of forcing Japan’s surrender. And that’s precisely what terrorism is, attacking civilian populations in order to force politicians to change their policies.
Tony: I prefer Brendan Behan’s definition of terrorist, “The terrorist is the one with the little bomb.”
There are primarily two entities in the world right now who want to maximize the amount of War on Terror battle fronts. One is, of course, the Jihadis. The other is the Bush administration. Both are serious threats, but only one controls the most powerful army on Earth…
Pingback: links for 2007-08-23 at Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam
I stand corrected.
However, the war would have still gone on, and large numbers of people would have been killed. This is not to justify the bombings, just to show what the other course might have been.
And there are still remembrance ceremonies. By Americans.
Are there any remembrance ceremonies about the Rape Of Nanking, by Japanese?
Jim — as a foreigner, I have to say that I find your response interesting, in that it reflects a defensiveness and self-righteousness quite common on these shores on this question. You’re absolutely right that the Japanese have failed abysmally in dealing with their own war crimes in China and elsewhere — it’s a feature quite common to nationalisms of all stripes to emphasize their own victimhood and ignore instances of their own culpability (e.g. Japan’s extensive observation of Hiroshima Day etc. but, as you say, very little on everything from the Rape of Nanking to the “comfort women”). But ask yourself, has the U.S. really held a proper moral discussion about Hiroshima and Nagasaki? What I remember most vividly shortly after arriving here was an hysterical campaign led by Newt Gingrich and the new GOP congressional majority to squelch an exhibit at the Smithsonian that was simply going to show the impact on the ground of the bomb dropped on Hiroshima. This was “un-American” they said. And besides, unless you first showed the brutality of the Japanese, you’d be making propaganda against the U.S. I found this utterly bizarre, becuase it was so reminiscent of the nationalist thinking I’d always associated with Israel and the old South Africa, i.e. you can’t discuss any of our actions without first, literally, “excusing” them by showing things that were done to us — like when Jimmy Carter discusses Israel’s apartheid set up on the West Bank, he’s called a holocaust-denier for the simple fact that he didn’t discuss the Holocaust! Similarly, I think there was a guilty conscience at work in the move by Gingrich and his cronies to successfully stop the Smithsonian inviting Americans to have a rational discussion about Hiroshima…
Tony: Since you have arrived, have you noticed if the “Gingrich” tendency is growing? I’m not sure. People acted pretty hysterically when we talk about apologizing for slavery or when we paid compensation to Japanese Americans. I feel we as Americans love to taught about “mistakes” so long as they are perceived as deviating from American values instead of expressing American values.