I’ve been playing up the sober voices in American media re Iran, but I need to point out that warmongering is alive and well in our media and was on full display last Thursday when Netanyahu went to the U.N. I was staggered by it. Andrea Mitchell pressed Dennis Ross on whether Obama has signaled too clearly that the military option is off the table for Iran, and Ross assured her, It’s not off the table. Not a word about possible containment.
Meanwhile, Alex Wagner had a panel on MSNBC in which Josh Tyrangiel of Bloomberg News described Jeffrey Goldberg as the greatest expert on US-Israel relations and passed on Goldberg’s assurance that Obama will go to war over this question. It’s at 5:30 or so at the link. Tyrangiel:
Look at Jeff Goldberg, who’s, you know, the authority on American reporting about this issue, and he said from the very beginning that people are underestimating the resolve of the Obama administration to go to war in Iran around nukes and that they’ve consistently done it.
Pure craziness. Richard Wolffe, presumably the liberal voice– he once addressed J Street–mumbled platitudes about our commitment to Israel. Again, not a word about containment.
The only relief I got that day was from Jim Frederick of Time Magazine, who said on MSNBC that Netanyahu was manipulating our electoral process and that we’d seen the same hysteria around North Korea. But that North Korea was deterred because it knows it would be obliterated if it hit South Korea with a nuke. A containment rationale. Just what Trudy Rubin wrote in the Phila Inquirer yesterday.
One talking-head calls another the genius of USA-Israel and, accordingly, it is so.
“Let it be so”, as the commander says. And “there will be war, make no mistake, believe me, TRUST ME, because I’m a super expert.” Wow!
All this spin has me turning over in my (somewhat) premature grave.
What I’m missing is someone who points out not only the behaviour of Netanyahu like that Time journalist, but someone who points out Bibi’s enablers, and in some cases boosters, like Goldberg.
Of course, that would unleash hell hath no fury from a significant section from what can be loosly defined as “pro-Israel journalism”(both of the ‘conservative’ and its ‘liberal’ variations), specially the well-known neocon alliance that exists across the political divide and ready to smear anyone as an anti-Semite, as they showed last with Dowd.
That journalist could begin by saying that Goldberg has been carefully following a propaganda line that basically consists of criticizing the Israeli PM/government only on tactical mistakes but never on ideological grounds.
In other words, in order to keep having the credibility of his journalistic readersk, Goldberg is no stranger to attacking Bibi, but only on superficial issues like the way he presents a case, if he pressures the president too much etc.
Goldberg wouldn’t be caught dead actually seriously discussing if Bibi wants peace at all. That’d be a much too penetrating question; it would get to the matter of it far too directly.
And so he dances around the edge dealing blows to Bibi for his tactical mishaps, but never allowing any serious discussion of intentions of the Israeli government.
Crucially, anyone who is willing to do so, is immediatedly attacked as “anti-Israel” by Goldberg and if that person keeps it up, he or she is smeared as ‘fringe’ and/or have an “odor”(read: anti-Semite).
That person might also talk about how Goldberg is constantly pushing the “Israel will attack soon” line for a very good reason: because Israel wants to be seen as independent and dangerous, while everyone knows – including Goldberg – that Israel can’t do the job alone.
Israel never asks for permission, and in some cases have been caught spying and stealing state secrets from the U.S., when it can afford to do so(Ma’ariv has a scoop on how Bibi was a spy in the 80s and stole nuclear secrets from America).
That Israel is bloviating so much is a testament that it’s “powerless” in this question(militarily) but realizes it isn’t politically – hence the deployment of the lobby to drag the president into a war.
Obama knows he can’t openly state he doesn’t want a war, because then the lobby would go beserk on him and work against his senators and his congressmen and sabotage his domestic policy. But he’s hinting heavily.
And what can Goldberg do in such a situation?
Well, he knows the power of the lobby decreases significantly since Obama has in some sense defied them publicly – challenged them and their favoured candidate – because he knows he has most U.S. Jews on his side.
Goldberg in this sense, needs to talk for Obama and will maintain that he has “assurances” that Obama will use force if Israel wants to, despite all signs that he doesn’t want to and won’t.
For Goldberg and other journalists working for the lobby, the next challenge isn’t to control Obama(which they’ve already failed to in a serious sense, except on the 2SS, which is serious enough) as much as ensuring that loyalty to the lobby remains intact.
On the GOP side, thanks to the complete control of the neocons, that won’t be hard. But the Democratic side is proving harder. That’s why AIPAC is devoting so much time for the Dems, precisely because the Obama generation of young democrats have seen their president battle it out with AIPAC time and again and they’ve seen the lobby’s media section(of which Goldberg has contributed) rear it’s ugly head time and again to attack the president.
If Obama wins re-election he will be the defining Democratic leader of the last 20 years, perhaps more so than Bill Clinton was(who had a period of good growth under him but never fundamentally challenged any significant aspect of Washington or defied the lobby as Obama has done).
There’s much to criticize Obama for, especially his record of subservience to Wall St, his continuation or indeed deepening of the ‘War on Terror’ apparatus, but he isn’t a war monger and more importantly, he’s willing to stand up for it.
The new generation of Democrats will carry this legacy of Israel in their hearts going forward and that’s why AIPAC is investing so much in student leaders from the leading 50 universities across the nation.
That’s why Goldberg has become a bit of a kommisar, almost each new week means a new liberal journalist to discipline.
But in the media, as well on Campus, Israel is losing the game.
Both Goldberg and AIPAC know that. That’s why their activity is becomming so frenzied.
We’ll see if it makes any significant dent in the overall trend or if the shackles of Israel is becomming irreversibly removed in the American discourse.
Krauss,
Outstanding post. Great analysis.
America to Israelis…don’t insult our intelligence idiots, you really are stupid to think we believe for a second that you have any regard for the US other than that of a parasite for it’s host. Really, these people are so simple minded it’s indescribable.
Pro-America Rally to Be Held Outside U.S. Embassy in Israel
11:18 AM, Oct 1, 2012 • By DANIEL HALPER
A pro-America rally is scheduled to be held tomorrow outside the U.S. embassy in Tel Aviv, Israel. The expression of support for America is being organized by Im Tirzu Movement in order to “remind the United States that Israel is America’s best friend in the Middle East”
“In light of the attacks on the U.S. embassy in the Middle East, the anger directed at the American people and those facing the silence of Western forces against Western values, we decided to hold demonstration in support of the American people, called: ‘ISRAEL SUPPORTS THE AMERICAN PEOPLE,’” the Israel group writes on its Facebook page.
“Particularly at this time when the radical Muslims burn U.S. embassies throughout the Middle East, it is important to remind the United States that there is only one country in the Middle East has shared values with the U.S.,” the group writes, explaining the rationale for holding the rally. “There is only one country, supporting always and unconditionally in the U.S. – it is Israel.”
“‘There is only one country, supporting always and unconditionally in the U.S. – it is Israel.’”
LMAO. Is that’s what the spy-traitor-pig Pollard was doing?
Woody Tanaka says: ““‘There is only one country, supporting always and unconditionally in the U.S. – it is Israel.’”
LMAO. Is that’s what the spy-traitor-pig Pollard was doing?”
Not to mention the admitted bombs in the US library in Cairo, the attack on the Liberty , miscellaneous killings of individual Americans, and the shameless subversion of the American political process.
To be crude about it, we may be spreading our legs, but it’s Israel that’s doing the fucking.
I really like better the language of President Ahmedinejad who talked about American politicians “kissing the feet of the Zionist regime in al-Quds”. Of course, under a theocracy, Ahmedinejad cannot mention all body functions and parts that presumably secular Colin can.
Following Ahmedinejad language, we can ponder: can the foot fetish go out of hand?
Anyway, among 180 countries where our consulates and embassies were not attacked, in only one there was a demonstration against such an attack. On the other hand, I cannot recall when an American citizen was bulldozed over in Tuvalu or Kiribati or military of any state other than Israel.
piotr says: “I really like better the language of President Ahmedinejad who talked about American politicians “kissing the feet of the Zionist regime in al-Quds”…”
Technically, I think my metaphor is more appropriate than Ahmedinejad’s. ‘Kissing the feet’ implies a certain passivity on the part of Israel: she merely accepts our adulation.
Israel takes a far more active role than that.
Of course, there is as you seem to suggest the drawback that my metaphor is obscene and disgusting. But then, our relationship with Israel is obscene and disgusting, so that may be ultimately unavoidable.
Looking at it optimistically, it’s all good.
Obviously, Netanyahu’s excursion into partisan politics is forcing the PEP brigade to choose. Do they want Obama, or do they want the ‘new sheriff in town’ — even if he is a Republican?
And they’re going with Obama. They have to lie to themselves to do it — but they’re going with Obama.
The FTat the weekend
link to ft.com
An Israeli attack was never warranted while there is still time for diplomacy..High quality global journalism requires investment. Please share this article with others using the link below, do not cut & paste the article. See our Ts&Cs and Copyright Policy for more detail. Email ftsales.support@ft.com to buy additional rights. link to ft.com
Mr Netanyahu’s threat of an air strike in 2012 was premature. The Israeli military establishment openly opposed the idea, saying Israel could not attack Iran alone. The Obama administration resisted his efforts to force America’s hand. The Iranians refused to take his blustering seriously. Finally, Israel’s prime minister blinked
But Israeli got the dough without paying any price. Land without any down payment or any mortgage, money to buy material to build new constructions,and money to buy ammunitions to use against Palestinians,and money to pay for the soldiers to protect the project. I guess the money that is spent on providing entertainments is also from US tax payers or from German’s poor lady.
The times, they are a changing. Rather loosely connected, but…
“BUENOS AIRES (Reuters) — Israel said Friday it was greatly disappointed by Argentina’s decision to meet Iranian officials to discuss the 1994 bombing of a Buenos Aires Jewish community center allegedly masterminded by Iran.
Argentine President Cristina Fernandez ordered her foreign minister to accept Iran’s request for talks in New York this week, marking a sharp change in diplomatic policy and drawing criticism from Jewish leaders in Buenos Aires.
Ties between Argentina and Iran had been virtually frozen…”
Going by the leads on their homepage, AIPAC has noticeably shifted away from ‘gotta bomb Iran’ to ‘sanctions are working!’
Is containment just a threat of annihilation? I think its pretty naive to think that “containment” doesnt lead to war
“Containment” refers to US strategy during Cold War vis a vis Soviet Union and China first described/recommended by George Kennan. Worked pretty well I’d say in terms of avoiding wars although fact that both sides possessed nukes probably added a lot of stability and actually prevented some potential wars (Cuba, Egypt/Israel).
Irishmoses thinks I’m stupid.
Worked pretty well? Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia ,Indonesia, Chile, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Honduras, the ’67 war in Israel — I could go on.
“containment” destroyed Indo China and Central America, it killed MILLIONS of people. WTF are you talking about?
“Containment” of Iran undoubtedly means hot war all around it, even if we never invade. Seems like Irish Mo and Phil are drinking the same kool-aid.
Dan,
Don’t think you’re stupid; do think you have a habit of redefining an argument to suit your own conclusions. You also have an annoying habit of falling back on ad hominems. e.g. Phil and I drink the same kool-aid. While I appreciate the indirect compliment, Phil and I are not in the same league so its unfair to equate my arguments with his.
Containment was designed to avoid direct war with Soviet Union, which it did. China was tacked on when it became a nuclear power. Containment theory was also misused a lot. Kennan himself felt both Korea and Vietnam shouldn’t have been fought because they had little to do with the goal of containing Soviet Union (Korean War) or China and Soviet Union (Vietnam War). I think Kennan would have agreed with you that a lot of the CIA-sponsored peripheral wars (e.g. Central America) were unnecessary but some of that was generated by post Cuban Missile crisis fears (hysteria).
As to Iran, not sure how you could have any more hot wars around it than we have already created, both of which have ended up strengthening Iran. Containment in terms of Iran means accepting its right to have nuclear weapons while making clear any use would bring annihilation, rather than preemptively attacking its nuclear weapons potential. This is essentially the same policy used with Soviet Union and China even though there were discussions internally about taking preemptive action.
Our nuclear weapons containment policy worked for Cold War adversaries, and would work equally well with Iran.
Beg your pardon, but when phil mentions the “containment” of North Korea, saying the explicit threat of annihilation if it attacked South Korea is what keeps it from doing so, I’m lead me to think “containment” of Iran would mean the same; only in Iran’s case “containment” would mean a US imposed total embargo of Iran from the outside. After all this is the “greatest state sponosor of terror” with its minions running wild across the the ME/Southern Asia, or so the story goes.
North Korea has never been considered the epicenter of a “movement” or an ideology, like Iran is. So at BEST “containment” means a total blockade – which will kill lots of people from hunger/lack of medical care etc- as well as a massive military/intelligence presence encircling the country in perpetuity, lest those weapons fall into a terrorist groups hands.
For the record, “containment” was a simple pretext for expanding the Empire. Full Stop. Funny that you give the theory credit for stopping a potential US/Russian war, but gloss right over the tens of millions it killed around the world, but I guess it was just being “misused.” Oops.
Leaving aside the dated uses of the word containment, lets look at the last country that the US tried to “contain” – Iraq. I think Iraq provides a much better illustration of what modern “containment” means, it means sanctions leading up to a full fledged shooting war, but only after civil society in the country has been destroyed. So to me, containment means: war – just not right now. What a rallying cry.
Containment, meaning starve them in to forgoing a countbalance from an aggressive and known dangerous, rogue enemy, is in this case completely immoral. The USA should _give_ Iran nukes.