Jeff Goldberg now:
I AM NOT ENGAGING in a thought exercise, or a one-man war game, when I discuss the plausibility and potential consequences of an Israeli strike on Iran. Israel has twice before successfully attacked and destroyed an enemy’s nuclear program. In 1981, Israeli warplanes bombed the Iraqi reactor at Osirak, halting—forever, as it turned out—Saddam Hussein’s nuclear ambitions; and in 2007, Israeli planes destroyed a North Korean–built reactor in Syria. An attack on Iran, then, would be unprecedented only in scope and complexity.
Jeff Goldberg in 2002:
Saddam Hussein never gave up his hope of turning Iraq into a nuclear power. After the Osirak attack, he rebuilt, redoubled his efforts, and dispersed his facilities.
Now, this isn’t just a matter of Goldberg now admitting he was wrong about WMD, it is widely believed that Iraq was actively pursuing a nuclear program as late as 1991.
(TinyRevolution via Atrios)
But, hey, Goldberg’s a thoughtful guy and only an anti-Semite would say he’s promoting the bombing of Iran by saying Israel will do it anyway and encouraging Chris Hitchens to yak about how the Iranian regime should be overthrown.
matoko_chan
poor hitch.
that was an evil deed. squeezing the last public drops of islamophobia out of an old bald dying atheist.
i relly hate Goldberg.
El Cid
As the New Cold Warriors never failed to point out via Team B’s propaganda, the USSR was both about to take over the Earth and defeat us with a billion more missiles and attack weapons, and at the same time were an example of communist failure which would soon collapse.
joe from Lowell
Just to be clear, Goldberg was right in the 2002 quote. Saddam DID rebuild his nuclear program after the Osirak raids. It wasn’t shut down until about ten years later, after the Gulf War.
That’s just flat-out wrong, and an important point to note: bombing Osirak did not halt Saddam’s nuclear ambitions, and bombing Iran would not halt their nuclear ambitions.
So, even if you’re the most rubber-sheeted of hawks, bombing Iran still doesn’t make sense.
Chyron HR
Whoops! Our bad! Can we get a mulligan on that one?
eemom
Why do you give a shit what this guy says? Does anyone really, seriously believe Obama would be stupid enough to attack Iran?
As for what the Israelis do, I doubt they’re exactly hanging on Golberg’s words either.
joe from Lowell
So, to any Iran hawks reading this: the fact is that bombing Osirak did not stop Iraq’s nuclear program, and the Iranian nuclear program is being carried out in much more hardened and dispersed facilities.
The only thing that stopped Saddam’s nuclear program was us invading his country.
Shall we invade much-larger, much-more militarily-capable Iran? And then what?
Turbulence
@eemom:
Why do you give a shit what this guy says? Does anyone really, seriously believe Obama would be stupid enough to attack Iran?
Because the village elites take him seriously. Goldberg’s Iraq lies ended up getting trumpeted loudly all over the media and became common knowledge. I fear that the same will happen with his Iran lies.
Obama probably won’t invade Iran at Goldberg’s request, but he has completely fracked up real negotiations with Iran in favor of he-man bluffing. When Goldberg normalizes the notion that Iran=Hitler and that we’re going to destroy them sooner or later, that makes it politically harder for Obama to really negotiate with Iran rather than just telling Iran to go frack off.
NonyNony
@eemom:
No. But do I believe that he’ll leave Israel hanging if they decide to go cowboy and do it themselves? Also no. Do I think he’ll use the US’s position on the Security Council to block any sanctions against Israel for going cowboy against Iran if they decide to do it? Hell yes.
You’ve got the dynamic backwards. They’re feeding Goldberg a message that they want him to get out to the DC elite. This isn’t Goldberg beating the drum because he wants to go to war (though he does), this is Israel telling Goldberg to beat the drum because they want us to take care of their Iran problem and Obama so far has been telling them to cool down.
Whether this is a real threat or empty rhetoric remains to be seen.
J.W. Hamner
I am choosing to believe that they can’t be insane enough to bomb Iran without first making some effort to shore up their relations with other Arab nations vis-a-vis the Palestinians.
Yes, I know… I am an idiot… but I just can’t imagine the alternative.
El Cid
FWIW, Iran bombed Osirak too, before the Israelis did. So obviously it was a pan-Muslim effort to destroy Israel.
Bnut
I’ve often been accused of defending the military to a greater degree than my otherwise bleeding heart would normally, and this is because I served in the military. Goldberg is Jewish, has served in the IDF and is right wing. Methinks we should take what he says with a modicum of salt. Not that he isn’t bat shit insane.
El Cid
My guess is that if Israel carries out bombing attacks against Iran the US foreign policy establishment (that network of Executive branch, military, and other government institutions, high level think tanks, many former high-level officials, and most of the pundit class which always approve of hawkish acts once they begin) would probably bemoan the unfortunate nature of actions ‘on both sides’ but in every substantive way back the Israeli assault with behind-the-scenes logistics and in diplomatic procedures.
Dave
What is maddening about this whole piece (or most maddening) is that everyone acknowledges that the blowback will be massive and that this won’t halt Iran’s nuclear program. Even the Israelis in the piece admit it will only delay it.
And if that is the best-case result, then what’s the god-damned point? If Iran going nuclear is really the second Shoah (their description, not mine), then a delay is irrelevant. The mindset of the Israeli leadership is schizophrenic and near-incomprehensible.
El Cid
@J.W. Hamner: What is the Israeli policymakers’ disincentive from their own power perspective of doing something ‘insane’? It’s not like the safety or security of Israeli civilians and society are a big part of their calculations, except in PR fashion.
georgia pig
Add to the long list of reasons to ignore Goldberg. Please delete him from your “favorites” list.
Turbulence
@eemom: Look, I think the Israelis are smart enough to know that they’re not going to get Obama to attack Iran for them. So that’s not their goal. Their goal is maybe a half-hour. I mean: when the Israelis attack, they’ll probably fly over Iraq. The US Air Force is securing Iraqi airspace on behalf of the Iraqi government. Once the Iraqis notice warplanes flying over their country, they’re going to call the USAF and say “shoot those fuckers down” — and that’s where the Israelis need their half hour. They need the USAF to say “right away sir!” but then experience some technical difficulties. Or maybe enter the wrong coordinates and dispatch fighters somewhere else. Or maybe cut their reaction time just enough for the Israelis to get over Iraq.
Now, everyone with a brain will assume that we’re in bed with the Israelis and helped them from day one on such an attack. But stupid Americans will believe the administration spin that we had no idea and did our best to help our Iraqi friends but gosh-darnit sometimes our best just isn’t enough. So what they’re asking for from Obama is quite easy. Obama is a lot more likely to say “OK, you can have 30 minutes” than he is to say “OK, I’ll bomb Iran for you” — Goldberg’s new lies might just make a difference.
cleek
fuck Goldberg
Amanda in the South Bay
I can think of a million good reasons not to attack Iran; being afraid of fighting their military conventionally isn’t one of them. The last time the Iranian Army fought anyone they used human wave tactics for fucks sake, the consequence of Shiite revolutionary bravado mixed with the traditional shittitude of Middle Eastern armies. Occupying Iran would be a disaster, but fighting a second (or third rate) military on the open battlefield is, the last I checked (Iraq, 1991) something the US is more than capable of doing.
eemom
I just don’t think this is even remotely comparable to the situation with Iraq. We didn’t invade Iraq because of Goldberg and other freaking villagers bleating the chorus — we did it because that was what the Cheney adminstration was hell-bent on doing. The Goldbergs just bleated the message, as their ilk aways does.
Dave
@Amanda in the South Bay:
Different battlefield. To get to Tehran, or any of their nuclear sites, would involve fighting in heavily mountainous terrain and crossing vast distances. Which nullifies the US advantage in heavy armor and allows for numerous ambushes and traps. Qualitatively, yes the US is far superior to Iran in quality, training and the rest. But terrain is the great equalizer.
Turbulence
@Amanda in the South Bay:
So, after the US Army fights them and wins, then what? What do you propose that doesn’t involve “occupation”? I mean, we’re talking about a country that is much larger than Iraq, has way more people, and has a much better military. Do you really think the US would invade the country (which would take months of staging to deploy enough soldiers to the right places), depose their government, and then go home so that elements of the old regime or some random Colonel could seize power?
Zifnab
@eemom:
That’s like saying, “Does anyone believe Clinton would attack Iraq?”
The answer is, sadly, yes. He bombed Iraq in Operation Desert Fox during the 1998 Blowjobgate scandal. The Republicans threw a hissy fit because something something whatever whatever stop looking away from the President’s pee-pee.
Then Bush used Clinton’s air raids to justify a land invasion, because we had to be sure Clinton’s missiles didn’t miss any 9/11 suicide bombers hiding in the ruins.
That’s the beauty of an Israeli air raid. Once the bombs detonate, who is to say exactly what we hit. Was it an orphanage? Was it a high school gymnasium? Was it a super secret nuclear bunker? Only granny black and white long range military-leaked footage can say for sure.
After the dust has settled, we can all proclaim with great glee that Israel hit something, at which point we’ll have to send in 150k soldiers to find out exactly what. Right after some Pakistani guy rams a bulldozer full of TNT into the Chrysler Building, for some crazy unknown reason.
eemom
I don’t believe that either. One thing Obama is not and never has been is a tool of the emmessemm.
And I do mean Obama himself and not idiots like Vilsack. Nobody but Obama is going to make a decision of that magnitude.
ETA: and Obama is not Clinton, fer fucksake. That’s a ridiculous argument.
Turbulence
@eemom:
True, but would the public have supported an invasion of a country that didn’t attack us on 9/11 if it weren’t for Goldberg’s propaganda? My hunch is that Goldberg was significant in shaping elite opinion, and once the elites were convinced, they worked hard to convince everyone else. Do you really think that MSNBC would have killed their top-rated show before the war just because it was run by an anti-war guy unless someone convinced them that the war is AWESOME? I mean, they threw away large sums of money…something motivated them.
Zifnab
@eemom:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution#Passage
Check who voted for the Iraq Authorizate Use of Military Force resolution. I count 29 Democrats, giving the final vote a filibuster-proof 77 vote majority. With a mandate like that, why wouldn’t Bush invade?
Blaming Cheney for the AUMF resolution makes as much sense as blaming the internet on Al Gore. This was not a one-man job.
Chyron HR
@eemom:
Luckily Obama is in full control of the USAF, which is definitely not run by bible-thumping millenialists who want WW3 to start ASAP so Jesus will come back.
…oh. Never mind.
Amanda in the South Bay
@Turbulence:
if you bothered to read what I wrote, I said that occupying the country would be a disaster, which is reason enough not to invade the country. What I object to is overinflating the dangers posed by the Iranian military conventionally. They are not remotely equivalent to a NATO country, or even a ROK or ROC. Fuck, even the IDF gets highly overrated by just about everyone, and the Iranian military ain’t no IDF.
Frank
@Turbulence:
Perhaps. And nobody will buy it. If that indeed happens, Obama will have as much blood on his hands as Israel. And be another LBJ.
Crashman
This story has me pretty freaked out. The blowback from an Israeli strike on Iran would be pretty bad, and would leave room for lots of ugly, unexpected consequences. Can anyone convince me that this probably won’t happen?
Turbulence
@eemom: I don’t believe that either. One thing Obama is not and never has been is a tool of the emmessemm.
Of course he’s not. But the MSM isn’t the issue. The issue is that every idiot Senator and all his idiot aides are going to be reading Goldberg’s crap and it will establish the new normal: Iran=Hitler, the second Holocaust is literally upon us, we have to do something. Look, villager elites look at Goldberg and see someone akin to Seymour Hersh — he’s highly respected. And he tells them what they want to hear anyway: the Iranians (without whom we would be getting flowers and candy in Iraq!) are evil Hitlers who are going to Holocaust everyone in Israel.
Once all the Senators and all their aides and all the midrange think tankers and all the media idiots buy into Goldberg’s lies, what exactly do you think Obama will do? He’ll have some Republican Senator who is on the fence about some random bill offer him his vote in exchange for hearing good things from the Israelis about Obama. What’s the easiest way to get the Israelis to say good things? Just half an hour. That’s all it takes. It doesn’t even cost money! Just make a few pilots respond a little slower than usual. It would be so easy. And no one will ever know.
And besides, Obama has said over and over that Iranian nuclear weapons are unacceptable. He’s made no effort at serious negotiations with the Iranians. His Iran policy is only marginally better than Bush’s. Don’t get me wrong; overall he’s much much better than Bush without question, but in this area….well….
eemom
But so what? The point is it happened because the admin wanted it to happen — the way they went about getting public support was just the means to the end.
In this case, the WH doesn’t WANT to invade Iran — so WTF does it matter what any pro-Israel rabble rouser says? There’s nothing for him to get support FOR. I think you’re mixing up cause and effect, as someone suggested above.
UNLESS you believe that Obama would be taken in by the likes of Goldberg, and as stated above, I absolutely do not believe that.
I think Goldberg is just a tempest in a teapot.
Zifnab
@eemom:
I have a hard time telling the difference day by day.
That’s not even to say I don’t like Clinton. On the contrary, given the choice between Reagen / Bush / Dole / Bush and Reagen / Bush / Clinton / Bush, I’ll take Clinton every time. Clinton fought hard for universal health care, he raised taxes on the rich, he balanced the budget, he created jobs, and he did it all in the face of a hostile Congress gunning for his head every step of the way. The man walks on water, when it comes to the domestic agenda. Obama could do a lot worse than being just another Bill Clinton.
But on foreign policy, Clinton was more than happy to pull the trigger, be it invading Kosovo or bombing Bagdad. And I haven’t seen Obama reluctant to sign off on round after round of military spending bills. In that sense, Obama could stand to be a lot more like Clinton and maybe reduce our military budget by a few hundred billion dollars.
kdaug
@Zifnab:
Yurp. That’s the bitch about asymmetrical warfare – they don’t need no stinkin’ conventional military.
Couple dozen US synagogues blowing up on the Sabbath, Hezbollah missiles raining into Jerusalem, and Egypt ending the southern blockade for weapons transfers into Palestine makes for bad times for the Israelis.
(Yeah, I know the Sunni/Shia difference, but I think Egypt and Iran are pretty united on their deep, um, dislike for the nuclear power in their neighborhood.)
joe from Lowell
@Turbulence:
We have no way of knowing that. The Iranians do everything quietly.
Joe Biden and Mahmoud Ahmedinejad could be picking out drapes for their wedding and reviewing language for an Persio-American NATO, and we wouldn’t hear about it until it was done.
John S.
Damn it Zifnab…
Facts are the last refuge of a scoundrel!
eemom
@Zifnab:
of course not, it was the whole fucking neocon establishment, that was in POWER at the time.
Cheney is a perfectly fair embodiment of that, however.
celticdragonchick
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2010/08/is-an-attack-on-iran-a-good-idea/61346/
By all means, DougJ, don’t let his actual words get confused with your rant. Goldberg is wrong about many things, but at least try to be accurate about it.
kdaug
@eemom: And I don’t think he and BiBi are quite seeing eye-to-eye.
joe from Lowell
@Zifnab:
No, it’s really not.
We’d been flying enforcement of the no-fly and no-drive zones for years, under a U.N. mandate to use force to enforce them, when Clinton launched the campaign, in response to the Iraqis shooting back at us.
This isn’t the same situation at all.
kdaug
@joe from Lowell: Heh, yeah. The quote from the article: “The Americans play baseball – we play chess”
celticdragonchick
@Amanda in the South Bay:
Yes. That being said…the expense and drain on manpower would be exorbitant.
georgia pig
@Turbulence:
Umm, yeah. I doubt some twit writing for the Atlantic has that kind of influence. Goldberg is just one of a gaggle of cheerleaders. What about Judith Miller, Kenneth Pollack and others? Yeah, they may have had some marginal effect as a group, but the big determinant was the use of 9/11 as a propaganda bludgeon by the Bush administration. A lot of folks who might have thought twice about invading Iraq were intimidated by that. Also consider that, for the significant number of folks openly opposed to the Iraq War, Bush and Cheney just ignored them.
Turbulence
@eemom:
I don’t think the US will invade Iran. And I don’t think the Israelis are even asking for that because it is obvious that the US is not going to invade Iran.
But Obama has been a hard ass about Iran. He hasn’t made a real effort negotiating. In part, I think he genuinely doesn’t trust them. But in part, cutting a deal with the Iranians would be a political disaster. Even if the Iranians agreed to full 24×7 US/Israel nuclear inspections, people in the US and Israel won’t trust them. They’ll assume any deal is an Iranian ruse, which means that Obama is either in on it (a traitor who is trying to help effect the second Holocaust) or is a useful idiot (Munich!). Either way, it will dominate the news and be a net negative for Dems come november.
Bottom line: Obama may really want to hammer the Iranians himself. He doesn’t like them and even an awesome negotiated settlement would be a political nightmare for him. The Israelis are offering to do it for him.
eemom
@Crashman:
That, IMO, is the real issue — not what freakin Goldberg says.
And I don’t think anybody knows what Israel will do — probably not even Israel. Contrary to popular belief, the place is very far from being some kind of cohesive, united manipulator.
THE
@matoko_chan:
Didn’t you listen to Hitch?
He knows he’s dying.
He knows we’re all dying.
Part of the truthsay of atheism, is coming to terms with finiteness.
Cancer changes nothing, for a consistent atheist, except the timing.
LFS
@ amanda in south bay:
Iran also basically has two different militaries. The actual army and the Revolutionary Guard are separate (although the Guard has all the cool toys and most all of the power). So, Iran’s military isn’t conventional at all.
On top of that, Juan Cole had a post a few days back detailing the Iranian intelligence and just how much damage they could do to US troops in the Gulf region if we did bomb Iran. Between the Guard and the actual army (but mostly the Guard), and with Iran knowing most of the shit we’re doing around their area, they could do a tremendous amount of damage to NATO-allied and US troops in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Here’s the link:
http://www.juancole.com/2010/08/abedin-the-illusion-of-a-%E2%80%98limited-war%E2%80%99-against-iran.html
eemom
@georgia pig:
Yes, I believe Cheney’s famous “So what?” summed that up quite well.
Matt
I see the world through naive eyes, undoubtedly. But if a journalist has the ability to talk to key players who in the course of their interviews reveal that Israel is seriously considering bombing a country and flying over American airspace to do it …
Shouldn’t we be really happy that this story got written? Maybe the important people of the world already know this, already know that American complicity is certain to be assumed, etc. But I got scared as hell reading that article, so I’m glad Goldberg wrote it (whatever his personal intentions).
Turbulence
@georgia pig: I totally agree with you: Goldberg was one liar among several and we can’t attribute the whole propaganda operation to him. And as soon as Pollack or Miller or any of the other liars starts putting out articles filled with lies to gin up a war with Iran, I’ll start slamming them too. But Goldberg’s the only one I see doing it now.
@joe from Lowell: We have no way of knowing that. The Iranians do everything quietly.
Yes and no. It is true, if serious negotiations were under way, we’d have no way of knowing. But, we haven’t done anything to facilitate serious negotiations have we? We’re getting more and tougher sanctions put on the Iranians, we’re legally authorizing military efforts to destabilize their regime from within, and our rhetoric is getting more aggressive. This isn’t the sort of behavior that usually precedes the striking of a grand bargain. Prof Walt explains in more detail here.
Xenos
@NonyNony:
It really is puzzling. Israel has excellent intelligence, and surely the non-politicians in the government understand that there is little to be gained by dramatically escalating the cold war with Iran.
The best explanation I can come up with is that the Israeli political elites appreciate that the Israeli experiment is in permanent crisis, and is probably doomed. And now all they can do is try to stir up the entire region in the hope that when all the pieces fall to the ground the situation will be better than where they are now. And in any case, they would rather go out with a bang than a whimper.
Basically, it is a death wish. The funny thing is that the Iranian mullahs seem to have a similar deadlock and death wish, and the whole thing resembles the dueling death wishes of Saddam and the Neo-Cons. The day has passed for all these people, and they hope that outright war with their satans is their last hope for redemption.
Zach
1998: Bill Clinton bombs supposed Iraqi Chem/Bio/Nuke weapons sites
2002: America invades Iraq
It does not matter whether or not Israel and/or America’s targets in a strike against Iran are legitimate counterproliferation targets. The same people building a case for bombing Iran today will claim that Iran is dodging inspections immediately afterward whether it is true or not.
The fact is that even a nuclear Iran is not an existential threat to Israel, because this has happened before without incident. Israel attempted and failed to stop Pakistan from getting the bomb; having planned an Osirak-esque strike that was foiled. Unlike Iran, Pakistan has actually engaged Israel militarily in an official capacity. Like Iran, Pakistan does not acknowledge Israel’s right to exist and does not border Israel. To my knowledge, Pakistan has not flexed the nuclear might that it’s possessed for some 25 years (they tested in 1998 but had the capacity to do so earlier) to influence its neighbors. Instead, it acquired the capability to neutralize India’s nuclear capabilities. Iran wants to go nuclear for exactly the same reason. Rhetoric about wanting to get rid of Israel is just that; I thought we figured out that preemption is a hazardous idea.
Steve V
@Frank: This is the worrisome scenario. Israel would force Obama into a decision over shooting down Israeli planes. Or is there another way out of that scenario that preserves the peace?
Midnight Marauder
@celticdragonchick:
Honest question: Why do you continue to give Goldberg and his intentions the benefit of the doubt, when history has empirically shown that he is completely full of shit?
Turbulence
@celticdragonchick: It is possible that DougJ is being totally crazy by reading the article and believing that Goldberg supports an attack against Iran. But DougJ isn’t exactly the only one. We’ve got:
(1) Stephen Walt,
(2) Flynt Leverett,
(3) Eli Clifton, and
(4) Paul Woodward.
All reading this piece as Goldberg trying to push an attack on Iran. If DougJ and a whole boatload of foreign policy experts are all reading the piece the same way, then isn’t it possible that your reading is incorrect?
J sub D
What rational person wouldn’t want the Iranian regime overthrown? That also applies to North Korea, China, Russia, Venezuela, Cuba, Burma, more than half of Africa …
However, it should be noted that the success of US sponsored regime changes at the end of gun has not exactly led to many happy conclusions as of late.
Truth be told, I’d trust the Iranians with nukes, current regime and all, more than our ostensible allies in the “War on Terror”, Pakistan.
Cacti
Does anyone else think Goldberg has one hand down his pants when types out his “Bomb Iran” fantasies?
catclub
“could conceivably work to bring the Iranian junta around on the nuclear question.”
Isn’t it nice that we all know the answer to the question.
Should some country in the middle east have 200 or so nuclear weapons?
It depends on which country.
Makewi
You have it all wrong. Goldberg was paid by Iranian interests to write a piece which would have the lovers of that nice theocracy up in arms that the dirty pig dogs might try to stop their oh so peaceful nuclear ambitions.
Seems to be working out quite well.
Svensker
@Makewi:
Is that pure trollism or do you “honestly” believe that? (In quotes because anything having to do with honesty seems far from your motives.)
joe from Lowell
@Zach:
I agree, a nuclear Iran isn’t a threat to Israel. Iran has never launched an offensive military action. Israel would still have overwhelming military dominance over Iran.
The threat here is to the nonproliferation [email protected]J sub D:
Oh, absolutely. Pakistan has been getting into shooting wars all the time. Here’s hoping the newly-democratic government will be better.
Steeplejack
@Dave:
And even a “second- or third-rate military” (Amanda’s term) has probably learned the lesson of 1991–don’t engage U.S. forces on an open battlefield. Once again we would be awesomely prepared to fight the war we would like to have, as opposed to the one we are likely to get.
Francis
Re: Blowback.
Goldberg (and some of you) could use to look at a map. Please note where the port for Saudi Arabian oil is (Ras Tanura, on the Persian Gulf). Now take a look at that nice narrow strait (called Hormuz) the oil tankers have to transit to get from the Persian Gulf into the Arabian Sea. Who’s on the other side of the Straits of Hormuz? Our old enemy, Iran.
Now, I’m quite sure that the US Navy could station the Fifth Fleet outside Hormuz and force passage, trying to sink every last boat with an outboard on it, as to prevent the Iranians from mining the Straits. But for how long? With what success rate? And at what point will the Iranians develop countermeasures (i dunno — long range torpedos?) that can be used to threaten / damage / sink supertankers?
Here’s the point: unless we want to deal with a new global depression brought on by skyrocketing oil prices, we’re going to need to secure Hormuz. And that means american soldiers on the ground, for the indefinite future.
KG
Whenever I read about how Israel is holding our interests hostage, I think about Washington’s farewell address:
I know it’s a different world and all that, but while so many within the conservative movement deify the Founders, it amazes me that they don’t really understand what any of them actually said/believed.
THE
Gravity gradiometer
fasteddie9318
So, one more Friedman Unit until the attack commences!
WOLVERINES!
Paula
This area of the world is a cluster fuck and will never be solved. In my life time, the middle east has always been on the brink of war. I don’t believe that any of the parties involved seek peace. But everyone has innocent blood on their hands.
I don’t know what America can do. What are our goals there. What are the possible and likely outcomes? Which ones can we live with? Does our support help or hinder the peace process? And what is our interest?
I don’t believe that Americans want to get involved in another war given that we have two right know with no end in sight.
fasteddie9318
@J sub D:
Why? Just because Iran’s regime and the chief global Islamic terrorist network are diametrically opposed to each other, while elements of Pakistan’s intelligence service have been working hand-in-hand with that Islamic terrorist network for a couple of decades now?
Why are you an anti-Semite who hates America?
Chuchundra
@celticdragonchick:
Don’t you understand? Hidden in Goldberg’s Atlantic piece is a secret message to the Judean People’s Front that NOW IS THE TIME TO BOMB IRAN! His clear declarations to the contrary are just a smoke screen. Can’t you see this? Are you that blind?
The psychotic hatred for Goldberg on this site is so over the top and detached from reality it’s hard to even engage it with snark and eye rolling.
Makewi
@Svensker:
I “honestly” suspect that this is a nest of vile anti semites who based their opinions on what is fashionable among the progressive set. Except you of course, and sometimes dougj.
Mike in NC
Over the past 20-odd years, the Pentagon has gamed every conceivable scenario involving an attack on Iran. The Joint Chiefs have concluded that the scope and complexity of any would be, in layman’s terms, a fucking nightmare. That’s why they gave Cheney and his cronies a thumbs-down.
Kristol and Krauthammer and the other neocons will still make shit up and write their fantasy pieces, however.
Turbulence
@Chuchundra: The psychotic hatred for Goldberg on this site is so over the top and detached from reality it’s hard to even engage it with snark and eye rolling.
Well let’s see. Goldberg wrote several articles full of obvious lies in order to push the US into a war that made no sense. As a consequence of that war, a million Iraqis were exterminated. I know, I know, the lives of mere Arabs are meaningless, but still: there are a million dead people who are dead in part because people in the US believed Goldberg’s many lies. He’s never apologized. He’s proud of his “work”.
At the very least, everyone here should be able to agree on the fact that Goldberg is not trustworthy. He published articles that were full of lies in the past and he’s never apologized or explained why.
cat48
Richard Haas, FRC, has been advocating regime change for Iran, saying we just can’t let them get a nuke. That’s really what his withdraw from Afghan. article for Newsweek was about. It’s getting in the way of doing what they want in Iran. He has a lot of influence with the Villagers since he is prez of FRC.
The main problem with Israel bombing Iran nuclear sites is that they are not equipped to do it themselves. They would do a inadequate job & the US would be blamed for the attack even if they were not aware it was going to happen. The study that Brookings and some other think tanks have done surmises that the American prez would then have to decide whether to get involved or not and finish the job or do nothing. Oil prices would spike immediately. Just not a wise thing to do.
Chyron HR
@Makewi:
AtraitorwhoswearsfealtytoIsraelsayswhat?
Makewi
@Chyron HR:
Well he probably wouldn’t say “Sig Heil”. That being your thing.
cat48
Goldblog was on MSNBC yesterday flogging his article w/Andrea Mitchell & she asked when our prez would visit Israel. He said there is no way that Obama could visit Israel as he would be booed by the Israelis wherever he traveled in public.
Complete fucking lack of BASIC RESPECT from our supposed “very best allies in the entire world.”
Think about that. Send the money “Black Hussein” as he is often called there, but keep the fuck out of our country. Makes me furious.
Midnight Marauder
@Chuchundra:
As Turbulence notes, the hatred for Goldberg is very much rooted in reality.
Unless you think spreading blatant lies and propaganda that led to a war that should have never taken place in the least is not a part of “reality.”
Chyron HR
@Makewi:
Thanks for sharing.
P.S. What’s the difference between Makewi and Hitler?
Makewi only wants to kill twenty-five thousand Jews
Chuchundra
Right, because blaming Goldberg for the Iraq war is totally and completely rational.
Midnight Marauder
@Chuchundra:
@Turbulence:
Do you agree or disagree with this sentiment?
Turbulence
@Chuchundra: Right, because blaming Goldberg for the Iraq war is totally and completely rational.
Chuchunra, do you disagree with my earlier comment that Goldberg is untrustworthy because he wrote articles that were later found to be full of lies and he has never apologized or given any accounting? Can we at least agree on that?
Socraticsilence
@Dave:
I honestly, don’t think it is- at least not to the extent some people think- honestly I think the failures in Iraq and Afghanistan have made people forget just how insanely powerful the US was in the early days of those wars (the conventional parts) or in the first Gulf War- on an open battlefield- or honestly in anything shy of sheer Vietnamesque jungle the US military will win an extraordinarily lopsided fight due to the technological edge- Air Power can’t occupy a country but it can crush ones military.
Turbulence
@Socraticsilence:
Yeah, about that….it turns out that a lot of people drew incorrect lessons about the utility of air power in the first gulf war. See The Myth of Air Power in the Persian Gulf War and the Future of Warfare published in the journal International Security for more detail.
In general, I think this approach misses the fact that technology improvements have benefited American foes more than Americans over the last few decades. I mean, in the 90s Somali militia were taking out $5 million Blackhawk helicopters using $50 RPGs. Air power didn’t do shit in Somalia now did it? Now, if the US were willing to slaughter millions of civilians, I suppose our military would be much more powerful in practice, but since we’re not….
For comparison, Iraqi insurgents forced the military to upgrade $50K Humvees to $500K MRAPs just by planting a few $50 IEDs. Total costs of the new MRAPs is over $5billion — the insurgents are bleeding us for a pittance. This sort of warfare isn’t really sustainable budget-wise; I mean, hemorrhaging money is what happens to us when we “win”….
J sub D
@fasteddie9318:
It’s a libertarian requirement you need in order to get your tinfoil hat.
Frank
@cat48:
If that’s true, let’s cut off the money supply right now. We sure as hell need that money here in the US and since Israel don’t seem to appreciate our money/weapons, I’m sure they won’t miss it.
Svensker
@Chuchundra:
Yup. It IS psychotic to despise someone for being an unrepentant warmonger, isn’t it? One who is also an anti-Muslim bigot and who is advocating — ever so politely, of course — for yet another war to kill Muslims and Make Israel Safe.
Let’s all sing….
We’re disturbed, we’re disturbed,
We’re the most disturbed,
Like we’re psychologic’ly disturbed.
Makewi
@Chyron HR:
Oh you clever boy. Don’t worry, I’m sure they will keep hanging homos in Iran long after Israel bombs their nuke sites.
DougJ
@Chuchundra:
Right. Because only psychotic hatred would motivate me to note obvious contradictions in an argument to start a third war in the Middle East.
Guilty as charged.
DougJ
@celticdragonchick:
Did you read the post or are you just here to prattle on more about your love for Goldberg?
Svensker
@Makewi:
All hail the Susquehanna International Group? Why would anyone say that? (Except for employees, of course…)
NobodySpecial
Obama would have to be stupider than Bush to engage Iran militarily. Watch what would happen to world oil prices once Iran blocks the Strait of Hormuz. And they would – a couple of nice supertankers plunked right there and a few mines and no oil’s gonna flow.
J sub D
@NobodySpecial:
Not as easy as all that. Oil flowed during the Iran/Iraq war with both sides using mines and ASMs indiscriminately. It’ll drive up the price but it would only reduce, not stop the flow of oil.
Chyron HR
@Makewi:
It’s impressive that you’re trying keep to up your facade of “I ONLY WANT TO KILL SAND NIGGERS TO PROTECT THE FILTHY FAGGOTS” even as you sob and soil yourself in rage over the Proposition 8 ruling.
P.S. I forget, do you think Rahm Emanuel and Elena Kagan should just be barred from holding positions in the government, or do you think they should be put to death as well?
celticdragonchick
@DougJ:
This is why I think you have serious reading comprehension issues.
You fabricate a “you love Goldberg” strawman out of thin air (I have little respect for the man, personally…especially after his statements regarding the attack on the Turkish boatlift) when I am asking you to regard and report his utterances, right or wrong, in an accurate manner.
You seem congenitally unable to do that.
celticdragonchick
@Chuchundra:
Every now and then the faithful here must have their minute of hate.
*shrug*
Makewi
@Chyron HR:
I think Rahm Emanual and Elana Kagen would make a cute couple, and I would gladly send them a wedding gift. Although your suggestion about chipping in to send them to Iran for their honeymoon will probably have to wait, as currently they might be hung.
PS – Taking a shower after a day at the beach is usually the best way to get rid of the sand.
eemom
@celticdragonchick:
the state of warfare between you two has gotten increasingly weird, considering as far as I can tell you basically agree about everything except what Goldberg actually said.
I will say that I read the Glennzilla manifesto on which this whole line of posts appears to be based, and it just reinforces my belief that it’s all a tempest in a teapot, less quaintly known as bullshit.
To mount a convincing argument otherwise, one must first come up with a workable definition of the newly minted Greenwaldian verb, “to mainstream.”
And after that I have some follow up questions.
celticdragonchick
@eemom:
LOL! The devil is in the details.
Goldberg has said repeatedly that he is ambivalent about an Israeli attack, but that he doesn’t think there are any good options to be had and that attacking could be a disaster and that doing nothing could be a disaster. It seems to me that DougJ is reading quite a bit of his personal dislike of Goldberg into his summations, a practice I find sloppy, unprofessional and annoying. I am no fan of Goldberg, but I also believe in accuracy when it comes to critiques. An attached interview of one of the people Goldberg talked to is hardly a basis for characterizing the entire sum of the paper, particularly when much of the paper arrives at conclusions rather different from the opinions expressed by one person in one interview. If I tried DougJ’s approach to writing in any of my science classes, I would fail the assignment. DougJ, of course, is not answerable to any objective standard. It’s his blog entry and he can write what he wants. I just happen to think his standards for accuracy are lacking.
serge
I believe that hell holds a special place for two-faced, echolalic fools like Jeffrey Goldberg. At least those with a pulpit.
But then I’m a crank who who never believed any of the Bush/Saddam we’re-all-gonna die bullshit, so what do I know?
mclaren
Only one answer:
Reality has an anti-semitic bias.
eemom
@celticdragonchick:
ok, now I’ve actually read the whole Goldberg piece and you’re absolutely right.
I have no other opinion about Goldberg since I’ve never read him before, and I’ll certainly take people’s word for it that he’s an asshole for having been a cheerleader for the Iraq war.
But that 6 page Atlantic piece is a thoroughly researched, comprehensive, nuanced article, that really does NOT advocate for any particular result — and for Greenwald to take 2 sentences out of context to condemn it as propaganda, is just further proof of what a dishonest self-aggrandizing hack Greenwald is himself.
Turbulence
@eemom: But that 6 page Atlantic piece is a thoroughly researched, comprehensive, nuanced article, that really does NOT advocate for any particular result—and for Greenwald to take 2 sentences out of context to condemn it as propaganda, is just further proof of what a dishonest self-aggrandizing hack Greenwald is himself.
Why do you think it is thoroughly researched? I mean, Goldberg published a bunch of “thoroughly researched” articles that were full of lies in order to juice up support for his last war…he’s never apologized or explained himself, so why on Earth would you trust him now? Do you generally trust people that have a long history of telling lies?
I don’t understand this weird fixation with whether or not Goldberg admits to wanting a war. Of course he doesn’t openly demand a war. But the article is slanted in various ways to push for a war. This isn’t some crazy fantasy that DougJ just invented after smoking crack. I gave you a list of four foreign policy experts who came to the exact same conclusion earlier in this thread. These are people that are familiar with Goldberg’s, ah, “work” and who know how to read articles that are intended to push an agenda.
I think I’ll side with the foreign policy experts on this one.
eemom
@Turbulence:
well, I’m not a foreign policy expert, but I do know how to read. I looked at all those links, and it seems to me they’re all arguing their own agenda, and putting their own spin, on what Goldberg is trying to accomplish — without any reference to what Goldberg Actually. Said. In. That. Particular. Article.
Again: maybe Goldberg does have a track record as a warmonger. As I said, I’ll take your word that he does. Maybe those people have reason to believe he has a hidden agenda. No doubt they know him better than I do.
But what they say he says, is NOT what he wrote in that article. That’s all.
ETA: if you wish to continue the debate, I would ask you to identify exactly what he says in that article that is “slanted” towards favoring a war. That’s something you don’t need foreign policy expertise to do.
Turbulence
Well, George Bush never said he specifically wanted to destroy Social Security. Therefore, democrats were crazy to believe that he was trying to destroy social security!
eemom
@Turbulence:
Look, I’ve tried to discuss this rationally and respectfully — but if you insist on arguing at that kind of idiot level I guess we’ll have to just, as the emmessemm folks say, “leave it there.” Nighty-night.
celticdragonchick
@eemom:
Thanks for trying. You have more patience then I do.
Bill Arnold
An interesting technical response to the Goldberg article from armscontrolwonk.com.
My main complaint with Goldberg’s article is Steve Clemons’ – that it left completely uncovered the option of working quickly towards a two state solution and the regional political effects this might have.
Turbulence
@eemom: ETA: if you wish to continue the debate, I would ask you to identify exactly what he says in that article that is “slanted” towards favoring a war. That’s something you don’t need foreign policy expertise to do.
Sure. Right off the bat, he presumes that Iran is building nuclear weapons. Maybe it is, maybe it ain’t. But the most recent National Intelligence Estimate we have says that it probably ain’t, and that if it is, we’re years away from Iran having a usable weapon. Let alone a delivery system that can reach Israel while carrying a primitive nuclear weapon (remember: building a small nuclear weapon is much much much harder than just building a nuclear weapon). Now, maybe the NIE is totally wrong. It is possible. But Goldberg never even mentions the NIE. He doesn’t talk to critics and figure out why the NIE is mistaken. He just pretends like it doesn’t exist. And he pretends like the many many foreign policy experts both inside and outside the government who think an Iranian nuke either doesn’t exist or isn’t a big deal also don’t exist. They’ve been erased from the story.
This is how you slant an article: you refuse to talk about really important points that might interfere with attacking Iran. Instead, you just assume facts that are not in evidence. After all, if Goldberg talked about how the NIE says Iran is not a big deal, then the Israeli government figures he interviews start to look kind of crazy and paranoid, and he in turn starts to look like a sycophant for not challenging their paranoia.
Goldberg doesn’t bother mention the fact that the Iranian leadership has issued a fatwa against building nuclear weapons. That seems, I don’t know, kind of important. But again, it interferes with the “ZOMG SOMEONE HAS TO DESTROY THE IRAN-HITLER MENACE NOW!” vibe that’s he’s trying so hard to push.
I mean, it would be like me writing an article about DougJ that started out by saying “Critics disagree about how much jail time DougJ should do for murdering the hundreds of people that he’s killed” — even if I said “I really like DougJ”, that’s not really compatible with my failing to mention that DougJ has never been arrested or convicted of anything and that the only critics who think he’s killed people are rightwing nutjobs. You can slant articles by what you choose to include and exclude.
There are other issues I could raise, but this is comment is long enough for now. Do you agree that presenting weird unsupported assumptions as fact while at the same time refusing to even mention the NIE or the fatwa demonstrates slanted coverage? Do you agree that an honest and fair journalist would have at least mentioned the fact that the intelligence agencies of the US government collectively think most of this article is insane?
eemom
@Turbulence:
sure, that’s a fair point about the NIE if it’s true — I don’t know and I don’t see any linkies. Same with the fatwa, though I would put less stock in that, because how could you possibly tell if that wasn’t just some kind of not-so-subtle cover up?
But, I do agree that whatever is known about the actual status of whateverthefuck the Iranians are up to is an important part of the story.
I think, however, you do Goldberg an injustice in saying that he’s trying to PUSH the “ZOMG SOMEONE HAS TO DESTROY THE IRAN-HITLER MENACE NOW!” vibe. He doesn’t “push” it, he acknowledges its existence within certain segments of the Israeli leadership and DISCUSSES it — pretty honestly, I thought. I thought it was particularly impressive the way he talked about how Netanyahu is emotionally dominated by his hard-line father — I mean that’s just not the kind of thing you discuss about someone you’re trying to get people to line up behind.
And did you miss the many parts of the article where he describes how the “ZOMG” meme is disputed by other players within Israel? How about the part where Goldberg himself points out that a Hitler-esque menace could NOT exist today given the existence of Israel itself and its military capacities?
Turbulence
@eemom: Thanks for replying, but would you mind answering the questions I raised here:
Also, I still don’t understand why anyone would trust anything Goldberg says. He wrote articles that were later shown to be full of lies. He’s never apologized or explained. So why would you trust his writing?