I’m delighted and honored to welcome Dr. Trita Parsi as a guest columnist at Rootless Cosmopolitan. Following the escalating tension between Iran and the West over the past two years, I’ve found Trita to be a singular voice of sanity in the proverbial world gone mad. As both a scholar and as president of the National Iranian-American Council, he has dedicated himself to promoting dialogue and peace, and he had a particularly important role in bringing to light the 2003 proposal sent from the leadership in Tehran to the Bush Administration, offering a grand bargain in which Iran would address all U.S. concerns — a proposal that was sharply rebuffed by the Bush Administration, under the sway of neocons determined to prevent any rapprochement between the U.S. and Iran.
Trita’s new book Treacherous Alliance – the Secret Dealings of Israel, Iran and the United States, (Yale University Press, 2007) is an absolute must-read, precisely because it cuts so decisively through the rhetoric and obfuscation that fills media coverage of the issue, and makes clear that the relationship is managed on an unsentimental, national-interests basis by all sides.
The tributes alone tell you this is an important book, welcomed by such diverse players as former Israeli foreign minister Shlomo Ben Ami, John Mearshimer (as in Mearsheimer and Walt, whose Israel lobby book quotes extensively from Trita’s work), Francis Fukuyama and Zbigniew Brezinski. In other words, it could just as easily have been subtitled “A grownup guide to the Iran-Israel-U.S. relationship.” Trita interviewed 130 key players in the strategic decision-making echelon in Iran, Israel and the U.S. — a unique achievement in itself — to produce a fascinating account of the sober national-interest considerations that have driven, and continue to drive both the alliances and the tensions between those three.
To anyone following the Iran-Contra affair in the 1980s, it ought to have been very clear that Israel was not unduly worried about Ayatollah Khomeini’s revolutionary Iran being a “new Nazi Germany,” as today’s rhetoric would have it — after all, Israel was actually delivering weapons to Iran on behalf of the Reagan Administration. The fact that today, these two countries that share a strategic rivalry with the Arab world are, rhetorically at least, at one another’s throats is also based on each side’s reading of its strategic interest: Israel began talking up an Iran threat in the early ’90s in order to maintain its privileged position in U.S. national security policy in the wake of the Gulf War; Iran began championing the Palestinian cause, and Palestinian rejectionism, as a way of pressuring Arab governments to counter its potential isolation in the region during the post-Gulf War period.
And as Trita explains here, Benjamin Netanyahu had a most unexpected take on the matter. Read on — it’s the first ever Rootless Cosmopolitan piece with footnotes! — and, more importantly, buy this book!
Iran, the Inflatable Bogey
By Dr. Trita Parsi
Benjamin Netanyahu would like Americans and Israelis to believe that it’s 1938 all over again: Iran, he tells us, is Nazi Germany; President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is Hitler. And, of course, that means that anyone who advocates diplomacy and engagement with Tehran is simply reprising the tragic appeasement politics of Neville Chamberlain, even as the clock ticks towards catastrophe.
The 1938 analogy is entirely fallacious, but no less powerful because of it – by at once terrifying people and negating the alternatives to confrontation, it paints war as a necessary evil forced on the West by a foe as deranged and implacable as Hitler was.
If Iran is, as Netanyahu and his allies in the U.S. suggest, irrationally aggressive, prone to a suicidal desire for apocalyptic confrontation, then both diplomacy and deterrence and containment are ruled out as policy options for Washington. The “Mad Mullahs,” as the neocons call them, are not capable of traditional balance of power realism. In the arguments of Netanyahu and such fellow travelers as Norman Podhortez and Newt Gingrich, to imagine that war against the regime in Tehran is avoidable is to be as naïve as Chamberlain was in 1938.
However, as I discovered in the course of researching my book Treacherous Alliance – the Secret Dealings of Israel, Iran and the United States, not only does Netanyahu’s characterization of Iran have little relationship to reality; Netanyahu himself knows this better than most. Outside of the realm of cynical posturing by politicians, most Israeli strategists recognize that Iran represents a strategic challenge to the favorable balance of power enjoyed by Israel and the U.S. in the Middle East over the past 15 years, but it is no existential threat to the Israel, the U.S. or the Arab regimes.
And that was the view embraced by the Likud leader himself during his last term as prime minister of Israel. In the course of dozens of interviews with key players in the Israeli strategic establishment, a fascinating picture emerged of Netanyahu strongly pushing back against the orthodoxy of his Labor Party predecessors, Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres, which treated Iran as one of Israel’s primary enemies. Not only that, he initiated an extensive discreet program of reaching out to the Islamic Republic.
When he took office in June of 1996, the U.S.-educated Likud leader sought not only to undo the peace process with the PLO and the land-for-peace formula; he also sought a return to Israel’s longstanding strategic doctrine of the periphery – the idea that the Jewish State’s security was best achieved by forming secret or not-so-secret alliances with the non-Arab states in the periphery of the Middle East – primarily Turkey and Iran – in order to balance the Arabs in Israel’s vicinity.
Such a shift required efforts to undo Shimon Peres and Yitzhak Rabin’s rhetoric on Iran – deemed “exaggerated and self-defeating” by many in Israel at the time – as well as attempts to quietly reach out to Tehran. [1] Unlike his Labor predecessors, Netanyahu chose to follow the recommendations of an internal Israeli government report on how to address the Iranian challenge, which had concluded that Labor’s inflammatory rhetoric had only attracted Iran’s attention and strengthened Iran’s perception of an Israeli threat, which in turn had made Israel less rather than more secure. [2] (Even though Israeli intelligence discovered the existence of an Iranian missile program in late 1994, there was widespread recognition in Israel that Iran’s rearming, its missile program and even its potential nuclear program were not aimed at Israel.[3] )
One of Netanyahu’s first orders of business as Prime Minister was to request an intelligence assessment of Israel’s security environment from both the Mossad and the military intelligence. The debate between these agencies was the same as in the 1980s – did Iran or Iraq constitute the greatest threat to Israel? And could Iran be relied upon to balance Iraq?
The assessments were presented at a full cabinet meeting. Major General Amos Gilad represented the military and Uzi Arad, the Director of Intelligence of the Mossad, argued on behalf of the intelligence services. While the debate was heated and passionate – as all cabinet discussions were in the Netanyahu government – the outcome was unprecedented.
Gilad argued that Iran had replaced Iraq as an existential threat to Israel. First, the Iranian regime was hostile to Israel and determined to destroy the Jewish State. Gilad dismissed the notion that moderates would get the upper hand in Iran and argued for the opposite scenario. “I presented a tough line that claimed that Iran would be dominated by the conservatives.… This was at the level of strategic intentions,” the Major General explained to me.
Second, the Iranian capabilities had grown, particularly through Tehran’s missile program. Gilad asserted that the Iranians would have Israel within reach of their missiles by 1999. The third component was Iran’s nuclear development program. “Even one primitive device is enough to destroy Israel,” Gilad maintained. “Altogether, it seemed that ideologically and strategically, Iran [was] determined to destroy Israel,” Gilad concluded. [4]
Arad presented a radically different perspective. He argued that Iran’s rearmament was defensive and primarily aimed at deterring Saddam Hussein. Iran needed to rearm due to the natural continuation of its enmity with the Arab states; after all, Iran and Iraq had yet to sign a conclusive peace treaty.
Furthermore, Iran was in debt, the internal political situation was unstable, and oil prices were low. All of this reduced Iran’s ability to pose a threat, Arad argued, whereas Iraq – with its existing Scud missiles, of which 39 had been fired at Israel during the Persian Gulf War – was a proven danger. [5]
In fact, the Arabs’ perception of Iran as a threat could give life to the periphery doctrine again, leading to an Israeli-Iranian re-alignment to counter the common Arab threat.
The heart of Arad’s argument was that Israel had a choice: it could either make itself Iran’s prime enemy by continuing Peres and Rabin’s belligerent rhetoric, or it could ease off the pressure and allow the Iranians to feel a greater threat from other regional actors. (At the time, Iran had the hated Saddam regime to the West and a mortal enemy in the Taliban to the East, the latter together with Pakistan both being clients of the Saudi regime that had backed Saddam in his war against Iran.)
“There are enough bad guys around them; we don’t have to single out ourselves as the enemy,” went Arad’s argument.[6] Israel should remain cautious and pursue a policy of wait and see whether Iran’s ambitions went beyond its legitimate defense needs. [7]
Most importantly, Israel should avoid continuing the pattern of rhetorical escalation with Iran that had characterized the stance of the previous two Labor governments. “We needed to tone down,” said Shlomo Brom, who was a member of the original Iran committee. [8]
Netanyahu listened carefully as the two sides fought it out. Gilad spoke with great confidence, knowing very well that no Prime Minister had ever dismissed the findings of the military’s National Intelligence Assessment. And with the Israeli tendency to embrace doomsday scenarios and treat nuanced and slightly optimistic assessments with great suspicion, the odds were on his side.
But Netanyahu’s response left Gilad baffled. In an unprecedented move, the Prime Minister rejected the National Intelligence Assessment and instead adopted Arad’s recommendation of reducing tensions with Iran. [9] Much to Gilad’s frustration, Netanyahu focused on Arafat and the Palestinian threat instead of Iran and put a complete end to Israel’s confrontational rhetoric against Tehran. It was a major policy shift that affected all levels of Israel’s planning vis-à-vis Iran. “Until the Netanyahu government, there was a proliferation of Israeli statements trying to deter Iran, warning Iran, the long arm of the Israeli air force etc. That was stopped, to his credit, by Netanyahu,” Ehud Yaari of Israel’s Channel 2 explains. [10]
Israeli media sympathetic to the Likud government’s shift on Iran argued that the previous Labor government was to blame for the escalation with Iran, citing the efforts of Uri Lubrani, Israel’s former head of mission to Iran during the 1970s, to convince the Clinton Administration to finance a coup d’état in Iran in the early 1990s. The publication of the Labor initiative had “caused huge damage to Israel,” unnamed Israeli intelligence officials told Israel’s Channel 2.
The Netanyahu government viewed these statements as counterproductive and sought to avoid such entanglement with the Iranians. “He [Netanyahu] didn’t want to use rhetoric that would just antagonize them [the Iranians] for no reason,” Dore Gold, foreign policy advisor to Netanyahu and Israel’s UN Ambassador explains. [11]
But Netanyahu went beyond just lowering the rhetoric. He tried to reach an understanding with Iran though the help of prominent Iranian Jews[12], he stopped Israeli attacks on Iran within international organizations[13]
, he arranged for meetings between Iranian and Israeli representatives at European think tanks[14]
, and he encouraged Israeli parliamentarians to reach out to their Iranian counterparts at meetings of the Inter-Parliamentarian Union. At one point, he even sought Kazakh and Russian mediation between Iran and Israel. In December 1996, Kazakhstan’soil minister, Nurlen Balgimbaev, who enjoyed excellent ties with Tehran, visited Israel for medical treatment and was approached about arranging a dialogue with Iran to discuss ways to reduce tensions between the two countries. [15]
None of his efforts bore any fruit, though. Iran’s dismissal of Israel’s conciliatory signals convinced the Netanyahu government that just like in the Iran Contra affair, Tehran only wanted to mend fences with the U.S. and had no real interest in rebuilding its ties with Israel.
Therein, of course, lay the real threat from Iran.
The Israelis saw danger in a rapprochement between Tehran and Washington, believing this would inevitably see the U.S. sacrifice some of its support for Israel in order to find a larger accommodation with Iran, in pursuit of U.S. strategic interests in the Persian Gulf and the Caspian Sea. Iran would become emboldened and the U.S. would no longer seek to contain its growth. The balance of power would shift from Israel towards Iran and the Jewish State would no longer be able rely on Washington to control Tehran. “The Great Satan will make up with Iran and forget about Israel,” Gerald Steinberg of Bar Ilan University in Israel noted. [16]
Israel’s relative regional importance to the U.S. would decline with a warming of ties between Washington and Tehran.
So, after nine months of courting Tehran, Netanyahu gave up and reverted back to the Peres-Rabin policy of vilifying Iran and seeking its international isolation.
Today, Israel is facing a similar situation, but with one big difference. Iran is far more powerful than it was in 1996, while the power of the U.S. to impose its will in the Middle East has diminished considerably. The difficulties confronting the U.S. in Iraq and technological progress in Iran’s nuclear program may compel Washington to recognize that its best interests lie in a grand bargain with Tehran. But the general view in Israel today is the notion that such negotiations must be prevented, because all potential outcomes of a U.S.-Iran negotiation are perceived to be less optimal for Israel than the status quo of intense U.S.-Iran enmity that threatens to boil over into a military clash.
It’s precisely to prevent such engagement between Washington and Tehran that Netanyahu and company are pressing the 1938 analogy.
(In Treacherous Alliance, I explain how Israel’s fear of a U.S.-Iran dialogue is misplaced and that it actually is through a U.S.-Iran rapprochement that the Jewish state best can secure its interest and change Iran’s aggressive behavior towards Israel.)
[1]
Interview with Ehud Yaari, Jerusalem, October 24, 2004.
[2]
Interview with Ehud Yaari, Jerusalem, October 24, 2004.
[3]
Interview with Shmuel Limone, Ministry of Defense, Secretary of Israel’s Iran committee, Tel Aviv, October 18, 2004.
[4]
Interview with General Amos Gilad, Tel Aviv, October 31, 2004.
[5]
Interview with Dr. Shmuel Bar, Tel Aviv, October 18, 2004.
[6]
Interview with Dr. Efraim Inbar, the Begin-Sadat Center, Jerusalem, October 19, 2004.
[7]
Uzi Arad, “Russia and Iran’s Nuclear Program,” Jerusalem Issue Brief, Vol. 2, No. 26, April 28, 2003.
[7]
Interview with Dr. Shlomo Brom, Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies, Tel Aviv, October 26, 2004.
Wow, great article. I’ll be checking out the book.
Pingback: University Update - Iraq - Iran, the Inflatable Bogey
Ah yes, the old “moral equivalence”. What do we see on the cover of this book? Khomenei and Orthodox Jews praying at the Western Wall. No doubt the same thing in your view, Rootless?
Rootless, I am greatly relieved to know that you aren’t worried by Ahmedinejad’s Holocaust Denial and threats to wipe out Israel. We here in Israel will sleep better tonite knowing that.
This sounds very interesting, but I am not sure how he has managed to argue in favor of the very unconvincing statement that U.S rapprochment with Iran would benefit Israel far more than U.S-Iran tensions and even military clashes would. An American-Iranian rapprochement would greatly harm Israeli interests, in that it would naturally mend fences between Iran and Saudi Arabia (and other Gulf States), and by extension, much of the Sunni Muslim world… Are we to understand that Shi’ite-Sunni tensions are not deemed to be serving Israeli interests? The only positive thing that might come out of this is possibly an end to Iranian funding of such groups as Hamas and Hezbullah, as well as the isolation of Syria. In that sense, yes, there are a lot of gains that Israel can harvest from such engagement. But then again, on the down side, it might have the effect of boosting Iran’s regional power and even creating a bipolar order as opposed to today’s unipolar order. I suppose many consider a bipolar order to be far more stable than a unipolar one, but does Israel subscribe to this view? Its policies thus far demonstrate that it does not. Furthermore, what about Saudi Arabia? Unless Israel comes up with a Saudi-Israeli axis vis-a-vis an American-Iranian axis (which is unthinkable given that Israel cannot afford to antagonize USA), the reconciliation with USA will no doubt spark a reconciliation with KSA as well. From a U.S point of view, this is in fact crucial to the stabilization of Iraq, but then we come back to the point: will USA give up on Israel or even reduce its support for it, in return for this? Is the U.S foreign policy independent enough of the Israeli lobby, to carry out such a change in its strategic outlook? And what will happen with the Palestinian issue, as well as the Syrian-Israeli conflict? Will Syria find itself totally isolated? And should the Assad regime fall, will Saudi Arabia support the rise of a Sunni regime there, and if so, would it be open to negotiations with Israel (and would Israel be open to negotiations on the Golan to begin with, or is the Assad regime a mere excuse to continue the occupation of Golan?). What about Iran? Would it condone such a turn of events to begin with? Or would a middle-ground agreement be reached with the U.S, which would prevent the complete isolation of Syria and a more balanced U.S position on the Israeli-Arab conflict? The possibilities are too many and too complex. The issues are too intertwined to allow for a simple reading of this issue. I don’t know how the author of the book goes about arguing his point, but I hope it is not oversimplifying the issue. Israeli policies towards Iran are part and parcel of a more general Israely strategy towards the Muslim world (perhaps with the exception of Turkey, which is a constant ally of Israel). I don’t think Israel can afford to separate its strategy towards Iran from its strategy towards the rest of the region. Turkey has a peripheral role to play in the Arab-Israeli conflict. The same cannot be said for Iran, with its vast resources and key geographical location. So while the Israeli claims of a “Nazi-like” Iran are misleading and quite a stretch of the imagination, Israeli strategy towards Iran is based on the idea that Israel stands to gain from a U.S-Iranian conflict. I agree with this reading — it is much more convincing than the one suggested by the author. Besides, what about domestic public opinion? Statements by such heavyweight figures as Netanyahu, Barak, and a number of other politicians, are bound to have an impact on public opinion, and reversing public opinion trends is not always an easy task. Nonetheless, the book looks like an interesting and enlightening read. Will check it out.
Y. Ben-David, you know what they say, don’t judge a book by its cover, huh?
One more thing, the “periphery” strategy that is referred to, is no longer relevant. It was chiefly a product of the Nasserist/pan-Arabist era, and might’ve been relevant through the 80s, but it rapidly declined in relevance throughout the 90s. Needless to say, its fate was sealed with the 9/11 attacks.
I used to think that the shortest unit of time was between the light turning green and the third driver back honking. That is incorrect. It is actually the time between Israel’s actions being analyzed under real politique and the lodging of a charge of “anti-Semitism” or the inevitable invocation of the “Holocaust.” (A double irony when you consider the lobbying to deny the Armenian genocide.)
Matthew, there’s something called the “Planck time” in physics–roughly 10^-43 seconds. It can be defined either with some fundamental physical constants, or experimentally in the way we see demonstrated in this thread.
This is too hard, complex and requires one to actually read and understand stuff. I much prefer to just view the world as “Israel good”, “Iran Nazi”.
And, to prove I’m right: the cover of the book is not cool at all.
Tony, please stop making us think hard. Here in America we’ve had the convenience of decades of only hearing stuff that’s good about Israel and that made everyone opposed to Israel a Nazi. Now because of all the internets out there people are beginning to come across stuff that’s not nice. Shame on you for ruining it for us. Please stop.
Pingback: Iran Coverage Trita Parsi Provides an Insightful Look Into Iran/Israeli Relations |
Pingback: ANALYSIS: Iran - Israel’s enemy of convenience
(1) Yes, I feel the compassion you all have for the poor hundreds of millions of Arabs and Muslims who control a big part of the world’s oil supply who are being bullied by the 5 million Jews,
(2) I don’t understand what the big shock is about the non-revelation that Israel tried to improve relations with Islamic Iran in the1980’s and 90’s. After all, Israel had a fairly friendly relationship with the Shah before the Islamic revolution in 1979 and it was felt that with Ira being a non-Arab state with bad relations with much of the Arab world, they pragmatically might want to quietly improve the connection with Israel. As I said, Israel is a small country of 5 million Jews in a very small territory with no strategic depth (contrary to what RC and other who post here seem to think) and so should it be surprising that its leaders might maneuver around and try to seek friends in unusual places.
Now, RC might feel comfortable there in New York or Cape Town because Ahmedinejad doesn’t seem to want to launch nuclear missiles at them, but those of us in his openly proclaimed target area might feel differently.
One comment above got all huffy that I might worry about someone threatening to wiping us out as happened in the HOLOCAUST 60+ years ago, and was offended that I mentioned it, well, all I can say is that history is a cruel teacher and we Jews are going to apply all our knowledge from past history to defend ourselves, whether you like it or not.
“in a very small territory with no strategic depth”
Hm, I would like to think that the 1973 and 1982 experiences have made Israelis realize that strategic depth has worked to Israel’s detriment, and not, as is habitually argued, to its benefit.
Ed-1973 exactly proved the importance of strategic depth. If the Arabs had managed to strike first, as they indeed threatened, in 1967, how many minutes would it have taken for them to cross the 10 kilometers width of Israel at its narrowest point near Netanaya? (I am not sure what you mean by mentioning the 1982 Lebanon war). Israel’s traditional strategy is to keep the fighting away from the population centers.
I don’t see how you view 1973 as “proof” of the need for strategic depth. If anything, it proved the utter uselessness of strategic depth and the immense burden it was in terms of mobilization and the thinning of brigades.
1982 — I am talking about the burden that the “buffer zone” posed. The buffer zone was deemed as a strategic depth vis-a-vis Syria more than a security zone to fend off PLO — the PLO was evacuated to Tunisia by the time Israel decided to remain in South Lebanon.
Strategic depth is one thing, taking the war to the enemy is something entirely different. You are confusing two entirely different strategic concepts.
You know what the dullest argument in the world is? See Y. Ben-David’s above.
Memo: Stop invoking the Holocaust to justify Zionist war-mongering. Stop invoking the Holocaust to justify mistreatment of your serfs, i.e., the Palestinians.
Notice in his short history lesson, Y. Ben-David did not include Israel’s INVASION of Egypt in 1956. Hard to be the victim when you are invading your neighbors.
The sad thing is that the “security” argument is just another way for the People Who Chose Themselves to claim that they reserve the right to pre-emptively murder others in order to remain the dominant military power in the ME.
I agree with Michael Scheuer: Israel’s security is not worth one American life.
A very interesting article, indeed!
(That Tony Karon dude shows exquisite taste
in his choice of guest writers, wouldn’t you all agree….)
Oh, Bibi! The guy never ceases to amaze:
serial bungler, psychopath, shameless opportunist,
and now spurned lover… What’s next?
Sadly, the Bibi show hasn’t folded yet. Not by a long shot.
Re. Iran, people who see that country as a clear and present
danger should consider this: no nation on earth
is being more threatened today than Iran is. None.
1. Not a day passes without a leading politician from
a nuclear power (US, Israel, France, etc)
making some sort of military threat against it.
2. Iran was attacked with chemical weapons by its neighbor
with full support from the US — in fact, not just support,
but active help. (We now know for a fact that the
CIA passed on imaging data to Saddam’s
commanders to site their chemical attacks. Nice.)
3. Iran is surrounded by US military forces in an advanced
state of agitation and a phalanx of nuclear powers (US, Israel, Pakistan, India).
And so Iran is fully entitled to its paranoia. Its either/or demands are rational. What they’re saying is, either we get security guarantees with the US or we nuke up. (For Iran to respond to Israel’s overtures without the US onboard would be a complete waste of time. Funny Bibi didn’t understand that.)
Now please name any western leader who, placed in Iran’s shoes, would react differently. For a big power under threat, actually, Iran has been remarkably nonaggressive.
(How many countries has Iran invaded or attacked?)
Yeah, yeah, I know. There’s our favorite nut job, Ahmadinejad. The guy truly is a neocon’s dream. They would have to invent him if he didn’t exist.
How much tougher it was to portray Khatami as the new Hitler. But then Mahmoud came to save the day.
OK, neocons of the world, enjoy Mahmoud while he’s around.
The US is intent on denying Iran security guarantees
because this would de facto acknowledge Iran’s status
as the region’s preeminent power.
This is unacceptable to a superpower currently
on the losing side of the new Great Game.
Funny though, because American and Iranian interests
in fact overlap greatly.
I ordered the book from Amazon as soon as it was released and I just got it. Reading on, I am impressed by the lucidity with which Parsi is reiterating the view held by many Iranians, the voiceless ones, who are not heard by the world through the propagandist bugles of the IRI or the neo-conservative/liberals!
I am going to propose a virtual reading club on my blog. Please feel free to join in.
People like Trita Parsi are indispensable to Iran! Heart-felt thanks to all his efforts!
Bernard-
Q-Who did Iran ever attack?
A-Argentina-two deadly attacks with hundreds of victims at the Jewish center and Israeli embassy in Buenos Aires. What did Argentina ever do to Iran?
Glad to hear that you admit that Ahmedinejad is problematic.
Another point-didn’t the US actually remove the fellow from Iraq who attacked Iran and allow the installation of a pro-Iranian regime in Iraq. So how exactly is the US “encircling” Iran?
Matthew-As an Israeli I agree, the US should not fight for Israel nor has ever been asked to.
Parsi overlooks one other significant fact also ignored by Netanyahu– Iran has NOT claimed it would ‘wipe Israel off the map’!
If you haven’t already read this superb article by Arash Norouzi published in January 2007, you owe it to yourself to learn the facts:
http://www.mohammadmossadegh.com/news/rumor-of-the-century
The “poor embattled Iranians”-that is the message we are hearing here. They claim they are being “encircled”-the same claim the Germans used in two world wars to justify their aggression. Then please explain to me why they are pouring huge amounts of money and weaponry into Lebanon, Gaza, Sudan and other places? Why are they engaging on a large-scale program to convert Sunni Muslims to Shi’ism? How is this different than classical European-style imperialism?
Bernard-you strike me as a singularly misinformed person. You claim the Iranians are victims of nefarious plots by the US and you claim that the US is encircling them with “nuclear powers” like Indian and Pakistan. Aren’t those countries friendly to Iran? How are they a threat to Iran?
Isn’t Iran basically a totalitarian state with an aggressive ideology of spreading their form of Islam? Aren’t they a major petro-power? They are not some sort of passive patsy-victim country.
Your view of Netanyahu has no basis in reality. You call him a “bungler” . His period as Prime Minister had the least amount of terrorism of any since the Oslo agreements. He liberalized the economy and made the Israeli currency convertible on the international market which contributed to Israels new economic strength. He, unlike “peacemongers” Rabin, Peres and Olmert never carried out a large-scale bombing operation in Lebanon, yet there were never any rockets (IIRC) fired into Israel from that country. He gave up Hevron in the face of opposition to the Jewish community living there. He signed the Whe Agreement (I, as a “right-wing-religious-pro-Judea/Samaria settler-type opposed these things), he supported Sharon’s destruction of Gush Katif all the way down the line until the last minute and then only pulled out of the gov’t when he knew it wouldn’t make any difference. Everyone, including his biggest opponents said his term as Finiance Minister was a big success. His policies regarding the Palestinians are the same as Olmerts “strengthen Abu Mazen”, create Palestinian state, destroy Jewish communities. His “opposition” to this gov’t is very tepid. WHAT DO YOU WANT FROM THE GUY ? (BTW-I don’t want him to be Prime Minister because as leader of the so-called political Right he would give away MORE to the Arabs than Olmert or Barak would be able to, just like Sharon did in destroying Gush Katif, an act the Left never dared carry out).
“why they are pouring huge amounts of money and weaponry into .. Sudan”
This certainly IS news to me. Where’s the proof huh?
Ditto for the Jewish community center in Argentina. No proof that it was the work of Iran. Only speculation and propaganda.
But on the same token, why is USA pouring billions of dollars of money and weaponry into Israel? You will say, because Israel is embattled, under danger of being thrown into the sea and so on., but let’s just stop this propaganda, it would be ridiculous if you seriously believed that Hezbollah or Hamas pose an existential threat to Israel so much so that USA would provide it with billions of tons of bombs to drop on Lebanese civilians and kill children on a daily basis in Gaza. Not to mention, keep mum on Israel’s nuclear capabilities, despite numerous assurances by Israel that it would NOT hesitate to use it if it “feels” threatened. So here we have a bully state that has in the 60 years of its existence waged numerous wars and killed tens of thousands of people, backed genocide denial, supported apartheid in S. Africa, funded the Burmese junta, implemented apartheid itself, all in the name of its so-called existential needs, and despite all this, continues to enjoy solid backing from the U.S. And when even a minute portion of this support is under threat of being cut off, accusations of anti-Semitism start flying all over the place.
And seriously, you actually believe what you wrote about Olmert never having carried out a “large-scale” bombing of Lebanon? What’s large-scale enough for you? Turning Lebanon into ashes with a nuclear bomb? Large parts of Lebanon have been almost completely destroyed, and yet you talk about how Olmert the “peacenik” has not done much damage to Lebanon? I guess we are expected to take this statement of yours as further proof of your yearning for peace huh!
Religious conversion is equivalent to European imperialism? That’s another good one.
Yes, Iran is deeply involved in Sudan, this is one of the reasons why it has been difficult to get action on the Darfur crisis.I saw it reported in the New York Times. Anyway, what about the Iranian Revolutionary Guards in Lebanon? What are they doing there? You didn’t deny that.
Yes, religious conversion is an integral part of imperialism. The British justified building their empire to their own population on the basis of going out to “convert the heathen”. How do you think Columbus convinced Queen Isabella to finance him?…this was one of the major arguments he used, in addition to promising handsome profits.
Did Israel threaten to nuke Arafat or HAMAS when they carry out their murderous attacks on Israel? Did Israel threaten to nuke Lebanon when HIZBULLAH attacked? What the heck are you talking about?
The Argentina special prosecutor has identified Iranian government officials in the two bombings and their have been extradition requests, as I recall.
You obviously didn’t read my posting very carefully, I DID say Olmert carried out a large-scale bombing of Lebanon, I said Netanyahu didn’t.
I dont know what you are talking about regarding Burma. But even countries you like, such as Syrian, Iran, Venezuela, North Korean, etc. support unpleasant states.
Ed- I will refresh your memory. In 2000-1, Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered Arafat and the Palestinians 98% of the territorial demands, promised to knock down almost all the Jewish communities (i.e. settlements) in Judea/Samaria/Gaza, pay (undeserved) indemnities to the tune of something like $20 Billion dollars AND to a least recognize, in theory the (undeserved) Palestinian “right of return). Arafat turned this all down. Did he make a counter-offer? NO. Instead he decided to start the suicide bomber war. Something like 1500 Israelis were murdered with thousands more wounded. Based on relative populations, this is like 75000 AMERICANS being killed in terrorist attacks, with HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of wounded. The US was motivated to go to war in Afghanistan on the basis of 3000 killed. So how can you say that Israel doesn’t have legitimate security concerns regarding Arab/Muslim hostility which is expressed quite openly? The Arabs are engaged in a war of attrition which they feel they are winning. This is why Israel must remain on its guard.
“I saw it reported in the New York Times.”
Interesting. “It’s true just because NY Times said so.”
Iranian Revolutionary Guards in Lebanon? I wouldn’t know anything about their current presence in Lebanon. Are you saying you have proof of that as well? Let me guess, the “three dead Iranian bodies (sic)” found in Lebanon during fighting in 2006?
Your deliberate distortion of logic is ridiculous. Selling the cause of imperialism to the domestic public is different than imperialism itself.
Neither Hamas nor Hezbollah attacked Israel. I advise you to change the terminology you use, because it is making your already ridiculous arguments look even more laughable. The Palestinians are fighting for their freedom and defending themselves from an ever-bloodthirsty apartheid-loving mass-murder-craving nation. As for Hezbollah, long before 2006,Hezbollah was branded a “terrorist” group merely because it fought for the liberation of South Lebanon between 1982 and 2000, despite the fact that its activities targeted Israeli soldiers in occupied South Lebanon, and despite the fact that Israel could not abide by the same rules of war and had to massacre — deliberately — innocent civilians in “retaliation” for attacks on its soldiers in South Lebanon. So are you saying that you defend this characterization of Hezbollah between 1982 and 2000? Do you agree that Israel was acting in self-defense by being in South Lebanon, but Hezbollah was acting offensively by trying to liberate it ? Very interesting, don’t you think? Israel in Lebanon = defense. Hezbollah in Lebanon = war-mongering? War is peace, huh?
And yes mate, Israel has threatened to use the nuclear bomb against its enemies including such minor enemies as Arafat and Hamas as well as states that have not gone along with its agenda at different points in time, like Iraq, Syria, and Iran… The Samson option, ever heard of it, huh?
I stand corrected about your statement on Olmert. However, you are wrong about Netanyahu being clean of the record of launching large-scale retaliation campaigns against Lebanon and Palestine. Not only that, but Netanyahu has always been instrumental in supporting and waging propaganda campaigns in support of Israeli terrorism against innocent civilians be it in Lebanon or Palestine.
Argentina: There is no proof as of yet as to who stands behind the bombing of the center. Need I point out the distortions spread by the previous judge, who had issued arrest warrants against Iranian officials and their local “aides”, and the subsequent release of the arrested persons for lack of evidence? The same scenario is playing out today — charges have been filed but no evidence has been presented. This does not make the “suspects” guilty of the crime, unless you and the Argentine authorities are in the business of assuming guilty until proven innocent. A travesty of justice. Is this the closure that the victims of the attack truly want? I don’t know, but it is the “closure” that Israel and its supporters want. After all, what would serve their anti-Iranian propaganda better than such accusations?
I did not know I had a list of countries I liked. I admit, I do like my own country, but it is not among the list of countries you supplied. Maybe it falls under the “etc.”…. Anyway, you seem unable to wrap your head around the idea that “liking” a country does not mean being supportive of its policies and terrorism. I for one can say that S. Africa’s stance towards Zim has been disgusting. Last I checked, I did not become any less of a South African for saying so. It also does not mean that I harbor hatred of ordinary Zimbabweans. This is exactly what your pro-Israeli logic implies, if applied on me and countless others.
Oh not the myth of the “generous offer” again…
http://www.gush-shalom.org/media/barak_eng.swf
So let me guess, if Palestinians offer full peace in return for let us say, chopping off some 20% of 1948 Israeli land and appending it to their future Palestinian state, you would accept it?
Actually Barak never promised to knock down settlement blocs. On the contrary, his “generous” offer excluded the lands on which settlements had been established.
“Based on relative populations, this is like 75000 AMERICANS being killed in terrorist attacks”
And many more Americans if we count the number of Palestinians killed by Israeli terrorism. In 33 days, Israel managed to kill around the same number of Lebanese as Palestinians had killed Israelis in 6 years of uprising. Looking forward to breaking your own record, huh?
Let’s see, going to war based on 3000 deaths is justified, but going to war based on a 60-year occupation is not. Going to war based on a number of Israeli invasions (1956, 1967, 1978, 1982) and occupation of neighboring countries (Golan, Palestine, South Lebanon, Sinai ) is not justified. Going to a war of liberation based on occupation of South Lebanon is not justified. Going to war to free 10,000 captives (including many women and children) in Israeli jails is not justified, but going to war — and killing 1200 people — to free 2 soldiers is justified. “This is why Israel must (fill in the blanks)” (possibilities include: dropping nuclear bomb on countries based on “feelings” of threat).
By the way, where did you come up with the 1500 number?
Betw. the Sept 2000 and Sept 2007, 558 Israelis have been killed in Israel, compared to 4204 Palestinians (including 952 children) killed in Palestine and 17 Israeli-Arabs killed in Israel.
Y. Ben-David
Have you actually read the book?!
Iran attacked Argentina?!!! Have you missed the reports of that allegation being laid in a politically-motivated mistrial?!
I see Ed Carson is taking you on that, but I just was compelled to point it out again.
a lot of your assertions, about Iranian wanting to wipe Israel off the map and blahblah, are just “myth”! so you may sleep very tight!
Great fun. But the lobby will continue to repeat the big lie until Iran gets flattened like Iraq. But what are you going to do with the large Jewish comunity in Iran, who do not want to be expatriated to Israel? They like it there.
@ Y. Bin-David
Tony’s already addressed your 1938 analogy!
Gene, I think they are the least of Israel’s worries. Right now they only serve Israeli propaganda in terms of Israel’s claims that they refuse to endorse Israel’s anti-Iranian propaganda because they fear for their safety. Aside from that, their fate will be similar to that of the Lebanese Jewish community. I am told there was a relatively prosperous Jewish community in the country, but due to the Israeli invasion their numbers dwindled. I think it would be interesting if someone would do more research on the reasons for the firm resistance to emigration to Israel on the part of Lebanese and Iranian Jews, in contrast to the acquiescence of the Iraqi Jews..
As for the Myanmar junta,
It could be that the Myanmar troops who’ve been shooting demonstrators to death were using Uzi submachine guns that Israeli arms dealers sold to the country’s military dictatorship. According to Jane’s Intelligence Weekly, Israeli “security companies” are believed to have sold Uzis and parts from Galil assault rifles to the junta. Israeli mercenaries are also said to have trained Myanmar’s infamously repressive police force.
“Given its sensitive nature, it is difficult to see how this assistance could be given to Myanmar without the active involvement, or at least the full knowledge and support, of the Israeli government,” reported Jane’s in 2000. Myanmar, formerly Burma, has been one of the world’s worst police states since 1988.
Jane’s continued: “Israel’s repeated denial of any military links with Myanmar are not unexpected. Israel has never liked advertising such ties, particularly with countries like Myanmar, [apartheid-era] South Africa and China, which have been condemned by the international community for gross abuses of human rights.”
more:
When the apartheid regime of South Africa was having problems with black demonstrators, Israeli “security companies” sold the white rulers electrified fences and gravel-spraying trucks.
Jerusalem Post, a pro-Israeli source.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1191257215260&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
Well then, the Iranians didn’t do the two terrorist bombings in Argentina, according to you. Sweet people, Incapable of doing anything like that. Then who did?
Like most hasbara nonsense, Y. Ben-David doesn’t address any of the issues, he just keeps shifting the focus onto his pet Zionist lies.
Recently, Ehud Barak’s adviser, Ephraim Sheh, made a very interesting admission: : He noted that an Iranian nucelar bomb could destroy Zionism without firing a shot. Knowing that Israel’s neighbors had a nuclear device would cause large Jewish emmigration from Israel. So there have it. Pre-emption is now the use of war to maintan a strategic advantage. Stated another way, we have the right to kill you if we feel it would help us feel more secure.
In all other contexts, launching an attack on that basis is justly considered a war crime.
“Then who did?”
So it’s either the Iranians, or … ‘nobody’? You bunch never cease to amaze me. Either you’re truly paranoid in which case I pity you, or you’re into the propaganda business in which case I pity you even more. Either way, the whole thing is pretty disgusting.
Ed-answer the question. Who did it? You seem to be full of information. If the Iranians didn’t carry out this massive attack on another country, who did? Other Arab/Muslim terrorists? Well?
“You seem to be full of information.”
Your question is misplaced. I wasn’t the one who claimed I knew who did it. I only said that you have no proof that Iranians were behind it. In my world, it’s usually the one who makes a claim who has to back it up with proof, not the one who grills him for lack of proof. Get it? Now show me the proof or else admit that you and others like you are merely speculating.
The US itself has a very complex relationship with Iran — Mossadegh, the Shah, Iran-Contra, and now it underwrites an Iranian-supported junta in Iraq, but that complexity hardly features into the shrill politics in US media now. I was hanging out with David Barsamian yesterday (I went to see him later promote his new book “Targeting Iran”) and he gave a number of examples of just bad reporting in Time (sorry Tony), Newsweek, the Economist (in the news columns, not the unsigned editorials that are awful anyway), and including the NY Times assigning one of Judith Miller’s co-propagandists on the build up to the colonial war in Iraq, now writing Iran war stories.
It isn’t about Iran. It’s about us–and what sort of people we are becoming. Another war based on lies will utterly poison our politics, discourage our foreign friends, and embolden our enemies. When they say we are the Great Satan, fewer and fewer people will laugh. And as an American nationalist and patriot, that is very discouraging.
Ben-David says:
Ed-answer the question. Who did it? You seem to be full of information. If the Iranians didn’t carry out this massive attack on another country, who did? Other Arab/Muslim terrorists? Well?
Y Ben David, I just put my money on the Mossad doing these attacks! Now go ahead and come up with a chain of new questions!
Excellent article. The future does not bode well for Israel. In terms of geopolitics it is the odd man out and specifically to the US, its only supporter, an increasingly unbearable liability. Many factors, including the catastrophe in Iraq, will cause the US to soon embark on a major shift in its Middle East policy based on coming to an understanding and mutually advantageous agreement with both the Arabs and Iranians. In return, both will demand that the US force Israel to comply with international law as per UNSC Resolution 242 (the “inadmissability of the acquistion of territory by war….” And “[w]ithdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories OCCUPIED IN THE RECENT CONFLICT” – NO AMBIGUITY WHATSOEVER!!!) and exit all lands, including East Jerusalem/the Old City, invaded and occupied in June, 1967. Minor and mutually agreed border alterations can be negotiated, including (as Arafat offered at Camp David 2000) granting Israel sovereignty over Jewish holy sites in the Old City. Unfortunately, Israel’s leaders and their supporters/lobbyists in the US do not seem to have yet grasped the fact that Israel’ sun is setting. By 2020, there will be 2.25 billion Muslims worldwide and about 750 million Arabs, including at least 12 million Palestinians between the River Jordan and the Med. These are the real “facts on the ground” that will determine America and the world’s Middle East policies. As for Israel, at least one million Jews have left to live elsewhere, many more are planning to emigrate and immigration is less than a trickle. Even Russian Jews are immigrating to Germany rather than Israel (as are many of Israel’s badly treated Holocaust survivors.) The world and the US are growing more and more tired of and impatient with expansionist racist Israel. Although two states may emerge based on the 1967 boundaries (providing Israel’s leaders see the handwriting on the wall), the inevitable long term outcome is the creation of one state in all of mandated Palestine. At long last, Jews and the world will finally be free of the curse of zionism.
To be precise regarding my previous posting, the second to last sentence should read: “Although two states may emerge based on the pre-1967 war boundaries….”
RC-I am new here so I don’t know the ground rules. I see you censored my list of intra-Arab/Muslim wars, atrocities and other examples of “illiberal behavior'” in order to show why Israel must be on its guard. I presume you consider that “racist”. However, all the anti-Jewish and anti-Israel falsehoods you allow through, presumably in the name of “free speech”. This seems rather inconsistent to me.
Y Ben-David, actually, the spam filter seems to have gotten you. Maybe you used rude words, or had too many links? Whatever. But now that you’re asking, actually, you seem to be hanging out trying to conduct a Hasbara press conference in the way that regular users of the site are familiar with (a certain Fred comes to mind). Yawn… Responding to everybody else’s postings as if this is your little corner of some bar and everyone who walks in must be obliged to have a conversation with you. You can jump up and down all you want about “anti-Jewish” falsehoods blah blah, but you’re wasting your breath; and you’re certainly not going to direct the discussion that the rest of us are having.
Why is defending Israel against specific allegations made in this thread and those who commented on it “hasbara” (bad) and saying things like “the Mossad did the attacks in Argentina as a provocation” is “legitimate discourse” (good)? Or don’t the Arabs and other enemies do “hasbara”?
Someone stated “Iran never attacked anybody”. I replied that Iran attacked Argentina, a country far away from them, and Argentinian investigators reached the conclusion that Iran carried out those attacks. This, of course, was then dismissed as lies. Then the matter of “Zionist lies” was brought up. What is the difference between “Zionist lies” and “non-Zionist lies”? Is that a legitimate part of the discourse in this thread?
So, again, what is the difference between “hasbara” and anti-Israel propaganda?
Interesting analysis and fundamentally sound. However, my question is where does the Israel lobby fit into this? I am not convinced Israel fears a rapprochement between Iran and the USA because the lobby would make Iranian diplomatic recognition of Israel a pre-condition of any rapprochement. Israel would be handsomely compensated, in other words.
Ben-David says:
“…all I can say is that history is a cruel teacher and we Jews are going to apply all our knowledge from past history to defend ourselves, whether you like it or not.”
I love the “ourselves” part. Many Americans would have no objection to that. Just do it on your own nickel and leave us out of it.
Why do you bother?
Why do you answer nazi settler bastards like Y.Ben-David?
Go to http://www.samsonblinded.org/blog/
Read it. Not too much, or you’ll puke.
Then, when someone like Y.B-D starts spilling their slime before you, think – it’s that kind of guy.
What’s the point of arguing?
You profess to care about the future of your nation, yet all you do is argue. The nazis are winning. As long as they can provide relative security and wealth to their heard of sheep, they will continue to win.
When they are no longer able to succede at that, it will be because the strategic situation around Israel will have changed. Then it will be too late, Israel WILL be wiped out. Either way, You lose.
Unlas you ACT.
Nazi settlers at least put their bodies on the line. And they put the bodies of those they believe to be enemy into the ground.
Blogging will not outweigh that. Neither will building a house with a few Palestinians during your summer break. Not when many more Jews spend much more time destroing the houses of many more Palestinians. It’s kind off more attention grabbing.
You want to send the nazis, and the Palestinians a real message, one that counts?
You are Jewish. Jews, from what I hear, enjoy relative freedom of movement throughout the occupied Palestine.
Make it loud.
Adam-when you compare us Jews to Nazis do you mean it as a criticism or a compliment? If you are a Holocaust denier, then what do you mean?- because in that case the Nazis didn’t do anything wrong. Please clarify.