Every now and then something delicious lands in my lap. But it’s better than just delicious; it’s decomposing, decayed, spongy and putrescent. I’m sick with fascination so I pick it up and turn it over and squeeze it and pull on it. I want to bite into it.
By now you may have seen Efraim Karsh’s Ode to Corpse-making in the Sunday edition of the New York Times. Apparently not contented by Judith Miller’s discovery of Iraq’s nuclear weapons program, Times executive editor Bill Keller seems intent on pushing for more war against more people. Coming so soon after his weak-minded defense of Ethan Bronner – our Zionist in situ – one wonders whether Keller is singlehandedly capable of discrediting the Times. No matter, so long as we get another round of Suck.On.This.
Mr. Karsh is not a thinking man’s Zionist. Or at least he doesn’t think you’re capable of thinking, so he’s very lazy about making the case for death-dealing. He starts off with a petty racist dig at the Muslims of the world – which is OK – I just sort of shrugged when I read it. Basically, the Muslims can’t stop ululating long enough to organize an athletic event. Of course, Westerners participate in the Olympic Games, which include – Muslim-majority countries…? OK. No big deal. Muslims never compete against other Muslims in the Olympic Games… wait. That doesn’t sound right. Forget the whole Muslims can’t get together long enough to do stuff. Let’s stick to the fact that they don’t win a lot of Nobel prizes. Math and science are definitely “beyond the grasp of the Islamic world.”
His mind seems to work like this:
I am dialectical in my methods and seek to educate by comparison; the Ayatollah Khomeini is like Stalin. And I also possess a deep understanding of the simplistic Arab and Eastern mind (like Jane Goodall, I lived among them).
Thus:
“[N]ot only do Arabs consider themselves superior to all other Muslims, but inhabitants of Hijaz, the northwestern part of the Arabian Peninsula and Islam’s birthplace, regard themselves the only true Arabs, and tend to be highly disparaging of all other Arabic-speaking communities.”
His argument develops, and with an undoubtedly reluctant and heavy heart, Mr. Karsh explains:
“[A] military strike must remain a serious option: there is no peaceful way to curb Iran’s nuclear ambitions, stemming as they do from its imperialist brand of national-Islamism.”
Let’s be clear about this. There is no peaceful way to curb Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Therefore the only way to curb Iran’s nuclear ambitions is not peaceful. The only way to curb Iran’s nuclear ambitions is through violence. The only way to curb Iran’s nuclear ambitions is through war on Iran. We are dialectical in our methods.
I have some questions for the ghoulish Messrs. Keller and Karsh:
Who will pay for the war? What will happen to the spot price of sweet light crude? What about natural gas? What impact will an Iran war have on the stagnant global economy? Have you generated price, cost, and impact projections based on all non-rosy alternative scenarios – the worst-case-scenario?
But those aren’t the important questions.
How long does it take for a human body to bloat and burst in the Persian sun? How long after death until I can pull a corpse’s jaw off without too much trouble? What does polyester-cotton blend burka burning into female flesh actually smell like? What does a rancid gut wound smell like? And when American boys are blown to meaty, bloody, beefy chunks by IEDs, does shit fly everywhere?
These are the questions that ought to shatter the spleens of every warmonger, anywhere in the world.
Mr. Karsh is plainly a racist, and values human lives differently – that’s one of the effects of Zionism. I don’t expect him to worry too much about these questions. But I think Keller is guilty of living unreflectively. His mediocrity arises from a physical and intellectual distance and an incapacity for empathy. I presume a lot, but my presumptions are sympathetic – Keller’s is only a disfigured humanity.
Either way, we ought to condemn men for the decisions they make. Keller, Karsh, and the New York Times editorial board have made a decision to try and push America into war with Iran. Mothers hide your children; the diseased dogs of war – the superfluous old men – are coming for you.
Department spokesperson, P.J. Crowley, claimed (Reuters) that Washington doesn’t want to impose “crippling sanctions” against Tehran over its nuclear program – as those would have “significant impact on Iranian people”. Crowley was shedding crocodile tears for the Iranian people who have suffered at the hands of US administrations and Zionist entity for over 50 years in the past. Some officials in the White House also fear that a further round of sanctions against Islamic-regime in Tehran will backfire as more and more so-called “anti-Ahmadinejad regime” Iranians would join the anti-US-Israel majority.
The hypocrisy of Obama administration is amazing. Only a few days ago – Hillary Clinton made AIPAC’s day by saying that she expect a “crippling” sanctions against Iran to be approved by UNSC within next few weeks. Earlier in a conference this month, Obama said that despite Tehran’s denial it’s clear to him that Iran is sursuing a path toward “nuclear weaponization”. He even showed his overjoyment over Russia’s latest indication that Russia is willing to vote for the new sanctions against Islamic Iran over its nuclear program which Tehran has always insisted is for civilian purpose. However, Obama doubted if China is ready to join the pro-Israel gang in the UNSC.
Israeli push for “crippling” Iran sanctions backfired
link to rehmat1.wordpress.com
Even if — for the sake of objectivity and scientific evaluation of the “facts” put forth by the two clowns discussed in Mr. Moor’s article — we considered their arguments on their merits, we find that they are lacking one essential component.
The two clowns are eager for the US or Israel to bomb Iran, just plain BOMB it. But, they do not bother to offer a plan for AFTER the bombing. They further neglect to consider the consequences of such an attack.
These omissions, prove that the two support an attack on Iran for the sheer satisfaction of seeing Iran up in flames. It’s no different a sentiment than Tom Friedman’s famous “Suck on this” comment on the Charlie Rose show (re: Iraq).
link to youtube.com
“They further neglect to consider the consequences of such an attack.”
Possibly not, Avi. If the US bombs Iran, or if Israel bombs Iran and does not get an immediate and complete negative reaction from the US, well, that pretty much puts them (US and Israel) in a death-embrace which goes far, far beyond the “special relationship”. No matter what the consequences of the war, if the consequence of the bombing of Iran is to make Israel and the US fightin’ side-by-side allies, the Zionists and supporters will love it.
If Israel bombs Iran (even if, let’s say, they do it entirely with their “own” resources, can you see the US saying: “Well, stupid Israel, you really screwed up, you are on your own now, bubele, we renounce you?” I can’t. We will have to “help” our Israeli co-democratists (or whatever). At that point, we might as well be married. If the US bombs Iran, can you see us leaving poor beleaguered Israel alone to face the consequences in the ME? Nah, we can’t do that to the world’s only Jewish democracy!
No, bombing Iran is a win-win.
And don’t forget, the US and Israel can always field an inadequate force or response to the Iranian response. Sucks for the guys in the field, but it makes for a better plot, you know Battle of Britain and all that. Gets everybody involved and cheering.
My fear is that the administraton sees an on-going military conflict with Iran as a winning issue for 2010.
Would be a way to buck things up as we slide into the second dip of our Great Recession, yes?
“Mr. Karsh is not a thinking man’s Zionist. Or at least he doesn’t think you’re capable of thinking, so he’s very lazy about making the case for death-dealing. He starts off with a petty racist dig at the Muslims of the world….”
He’s just doing Martin Kramer one better: They’re *all* “superfluous” human beings.
Sure glad I pay my taxes; given that so many go to Israel at least *I’ll* never been seen as superfluous I don’t think . Whew….
i once saw friedman speak and heard him use the ‘suck on this’ line then; it was his response to people who had criticized him for having reinvented, i think he put it, the new york times foreign affairs column. i wrote the book the lexus and the olive tree, he said, and i told people you can suck on this. after i saw him speak and listened to him talk to some friends at a reception afterwards, i came to two conclusions: 1) he is extraordinarily arrogant. 2) he’s really, really short.
The Napoleon complex both physically and mentally…hehe
“Mr. Karsh is not a thinking man’s Zionist.”
Zionism is more about feeling than thinking.
He just can’t understand why anybody would deny themselves the benefits of Ziocaine. After all, it feels so good to him, don’t you want a shot? Okay, suit yourself, but you don’t know what you’re missing.
I will be vindicated on this: Zionism-support causes physiological changes which are gratifying in some way, and is addictive (to the poor mis-guided schmos who get started on the stuff) and can be detected with today’s medical machinery. Pay special attention to the vagus nerve, and its paradoxical action when depressed.
Bill Keller as you suggest is in way over his head. He inherited the job by accident from Howell Raines (a real editor actually) by being the good company boy who doesn’t ask questions. He follows orders and acts less like an editor than a delivery boy for among others AIPAC and the NeoCons (same thing). We know this of course, but it serves as a reminder not to expect responsible, intelligent or even, forbid, courageous behavior from Keller.
The endless drumbeat for war with Iran doesn’t seem to bother the readers of the Times much. It’ s what they go to the Times for. Their writers are primed for it like they were for Iraq. Bob Herbert is the lone exception to their array of right-winger columnists.
As for Efraim Karsh, he is the perfect choice for this mission and by going to him you know what you are going to get: a pro-war, pro-Israel view tailored for the Times.
How about a front page article by Amira Hass? Or Naomi Klein? Of course not. When you hear these names you are reminded of how far right the Times really is and how much American domestic and foreign policy is “manufactured consent.”
There was also the recent Lara Dadkhah call for getting on with the glorious business of war, killing civilians, collateral damage is worth the price (remember Madeleine Albright on 60 Minutes during the Clinton imperium?).
So the Times is on a “Go Bomb the Infidels” tyrade.
And it’s not just the Times. We have Martin Kramer at Harvard, raising an eyebrow at God’s Greatest University but ignored by all of the media. And then the additional usual suspects.
it’s not just the Times and Martin Kramer at Harvard, its, inter alia George Friedman flacking oh so well informed, cleverly geostrategically analyzed analytical analysis: Thinking About the Unthinkable: US Iran Deal? link to stratfor.com
The most amazing thing about Friedman’s writing on this bit of toilet paper is that it uses the word ‘Israel’ only three times, in a clearly passive, background role (roll? tee hee).
Friedman’s argument is, snooze, neoconia redux, but the passivity of his awareness of the blood that would flow is simply stunning:
*this poobah strategerist is concerned about intelligence, as any poobah worth his poo must certainly be.
If only half as many US congresspersons would travel to and around Iran as have been dragged (drug? ziocained?) to Israel, perhaps they might be able to discuss Iran more intelligently.
I can tell you — hell, I can show you my photos — that Iran has nuclear “targets” not 2 miles from densely populated villages and cities, one of them being Isfehan, a UN protected Heritage site. Natanz is less than five miles from a 4000 year old Turkic mosque, surrounded by a thriving village. The nuclear location at Qom is about 120 miles from Tehran: Tehran sets on very fragile earthquake fault lines, as does much of Iran. Bombing Iran could trigger geoseismic activity of unimaginable horror.
I hate myself for the rage I feel at people like Keller and Kramer and Friedman and all other warmongers who so blithely strategize the nuclear devastation of a people and place that has done them no harm, just because they are greedy bastards whose “huge imago made a psychopathic god.”
Psychopathic god, I thought George Friedman’s analysis was extremely reasonable and full of details between the lines. He’s basically saying US interests are not served in any way, shape, or form, by indulging Israel, and he recognizes that it will become “enraged” by US refusal to bomb Iran either militarily or financially.
His readership isn’t going to buy emotional fire and brimstone reasoning. I thought he laid our the strategic risk TO THE USA well; he certainly didn’t pander to Israel’s paranoiac lunacy, or the (Tom) Friedman/Huntington/Fukuyama view of military superiority/Islamofascism craziness.
That is some putrid article. Someone should go through the NYTs archives for similarly racist opinions about native Americans and shame the “Paper of Record.”
I’m not going to defend Efraim Karsh, who’s a dissembling propagandist, but in terms of the appearance of Karsh’s NYT op-ed, Bill Keller shouldn’t be the target of your ire. It should be the editors of the Times op-ed page, who I think know better than to print such hokum. The NYT is like a bunch of little fiefdoms, which operate with lots of independence.
Great post, Ahmed.
“stemming as they do from its imperialist brand of national-Islamism.”
Yes, and the deeply felt desire (in some quarters) to bomb Iran appears to be nothing other than the US-Israeli brand of “imperialist brand of national-ANTI-Islamism.”
No-one examines the argument. To me it is unclear why a nuclear-armed Iran is more dangerous than a n-a Pakistan. Or Israel. But these guys are bent on attacking Iran and don’t care to see if there is a principled reason to do it (or to refrain from doing it) or for attacking someone else for the same principled reason.
And, as one commenter mentioned, this sort of thing serves further to cement US and Israel together. Our Congress will be asked to vote for a NECESSARY WAR, and will vote “yes”, having learned nothing from Iraq — and having done so, will then be even more firmly in bed with Israel. [Guess who's on top?]
Once upon a time, politics was the business of the dog wagging the tail. Now even the smallest tail can wag the biggest dog.
I shared Psycho’s view that Friedman’s article was written in the cold-hearted, ultra-calculating rhetoric of a certain kind of militarism, and became so complicated (particularly the bit about Turkey) that any political leader trying to follow Friedman’s advice would likely tie himself in knots. But I also share MRW’s view that there was substantial reason in what he said and that the choice of rhetoric was probably the right one given the people he wanted to convince, not the likes of us but military/industrial calculating types.
I’ve rarely seen such a succinct explanation of why war with Iran would be a nightmare, why Western power has to be withdrawn from the ME and why we cannot be moved by Israel’s rage. George Bush himself must have followed similar advice, since he somehow resisted very intense Israeli pressure to attack Iran.