Drums in the Deep

by Eric Martin

DougJ at Balloon Juice flags this bit of speculation from MJ Rosenberg (subesequently edited slightly):

I guess the reports that Jeff Goldberg is about to publish a neocon magnum opus calling for bombing Iran are true.

DougJ :

I wonder if very liberal New Yorker magazine will publish another Goldberg piece like this one from 2002.

Actually, from what I'm hearing, Goldberg's piece will be published in the "liberal" New Republic, but really, let's not quibble about which masthead is giving a bipartisan sheen to the most recent bout of war mongering. 

Rosenberg continues:

He is now telling readers that the United Arab Emirates supposedly favor Pearl Harboring Iran. And he says that the Arabs pretty much all want the Israelis or Americans to do it. (If we are to believe Goldberg, these unnamed Arabs tell neocons something entirely different than they tell anyone else. The diplomats I talk to say that an attack would result in such a strong negative reaction among Arabs that the moderate regimes would fall).

There are at least a few different permutations to consider.  On the one hand, it is certain that some (most/all?) Arab regimes would prefer that Iran remain nuclear-weapons free. It is also possible that some of those regimes, or at least some regime officials (the UAE government is already distancing itself from the remarks cited by Goldberg), would at least privately endorse a military strike by the United States or Israel in furtherance of that goal.  But the group gets smaller, less high ranking and less vociferous the farther along one goes on the path that starts out with private objections to the concept of a nuclear armed Iran to actually publicly endorsing a military strike by the US or Israel.

Further, it is also certain that such attacks would be wildly unpopular with the Arab populations in those same countries - a fact that Goldberg elides with a studied nonchalance.

Following the Iraq pattern (Goldberg was lead boy in the Iraq pro-war chorus) his piece won't come out until the fall. As Karl Rove said last time, you don't roll out a new product (in this case, war) in August.

These guys are getting ready. And, after watching Obama with Netanyahu yesterday, I am not sure Goldberg and company won't prevail.

First, it should be noted that Goldberg was not the "lead" in the Iraq pro-war chorus.  In terms of liberal hawk leading roles, Kenneth Pollack and Thomas Friedman were more influential.  That being said, Goldberg definitely did his part (for which he remains stubbornly unapologetic), deserves the criticism he receives and all appearances are that he is looking to claim the spotlight for the hoped-for sequel.

Speaking of which, for the past five years I have been pessimistic about the prospects of the US military striking Iran itself, or green lighting an Israeli attempt to do so.  Logistical constraints (and an already badly overstretched military) have thus far proven to be insurmountable obstacles to an otherwise willing political class.  There is little evidence that I've seen to indicate that those impediments have lessened to the degree that the Obama administration would wander where even the Bush administration dared not tread.

Not that Jeffrey Goldberg won't employ his usual array of exaggerated evidence, tendentious interpretation and selective quotation in an attempt to bring about yet another episode of shock, awe and carnage.  Hell, he'll probably soften the edges by framing the whole endeavor as a means of helping those poor oppressed Iranians.  Or, in the present example, as championing those poor fearful Arabs.

Comments

[John Thullen]

Zombies walk the land.

Nuke from space.

[Carleton Wu]

Hell, he'll probably soften the edges by framing the whole endeavor as a means of helping those poor oppressed Iranians.

via World-O-Crap:
Indiscriminate bombing is the best and easiest way to win Hearts and Minds, because after you’re through they’re usually just scattered around out in the open.

[Model 62]

Karl Rove didn't say that.

Andrew Card did.

[Hogan]

all appearances are that he is looking to claim the spotlight for the hoped-for sequel.

And even if he doesn't get the sequel now, he can drum up more Republican victories in the midterm and gin up the issue for the 2012 presidential campaign. So, win-win.

BTW, does anyone have some laudanum for Mr. Thullen? He's starting to terrify me.

[Ugh]

And, after watching Obama with Netanyahu yesterday, I am not sure Goldberg and company won't prevail.

It would have been nice if he had expanded on this a little bit.

[Eric Martin]

Good point Model 62.

Ugh: I think it's a reference to the general chumminess and the lack of any conditions/demands on the part of Obama - which some had hoped for and even predicted.

But as you said, it would have been better had MJ expanded.

[Jim]

The UAE ambassador was quoted on TV, an excerpt of an interview, as saying that a US failure attack Iran would have the effect of edging the UAE closer to Iran. The slimy little blackmailer probably thought that was some kind of bargaining position. I was amazed that the interviewer didn't point out that however much that was an argument to attack Iran, it was a much better argument to attack the UAE.

Like that would ever happen either.

[El Cid]

We will be greeted as liberators, and candy and sweets will be given.

[McKinneyTexas]

Eric, the odds of this administration authorizing Israel to preempt Iran and start a regional war are less than zero. There are plenty of other things to worry about.

[Eric Martin]

Yeah McTex, that was more or less my conclusion.

[Jacob Davies]

The part that I just can't grasp, well, one of several, is the idea that this would be a morally righteous exercise. By that standard Russia would have been morally justified in invading and occupying the United States during the Manhattan Project (and the US would have been morally justified in invading and occupying the USSR before 1949).

We may not like that another country might (or might not) be developing nuclear weapons, we may try to discourage it, but it's a hell of a long way from that to saying that we have the right to take aggressive military action and kill a bunch of other people in another country to prevent it. There is this thing called "sovereignty" which we generally think is a pretty good idea because it stops everyone from trying to run everyone else's country, which has not worked out terribly well in the past.

[cleek]

There is this thing called "sovereignty" which we generally think is a pretty good idea because it stops everyone from trying to run everyone else's country, which has not worked out terribly well in the past.

"sovereignty" is a lie we tell little countries so that they'll believe us when we say it pains us to have to invade yet another country.

[Bernard Yomtov]

the odds of this administration authorizing Israel to preempt Iran and start a regional war are less than zero.

I hope you are right.

The very notion of bombing Iran strikes me as insane, on any number of grounds, not least moral.

I was going to leave it there, but I can't. What can this possibly accomplish other than killing lots of people? It will surely turn Iran against us for decades. (And why not?) It's a disastrously stupid notion, on both moral and practical grounds.

[Model 62]

I don't know that it was much of a point, Eric Martin. More like a correction that reminds how deep into the policy apparatus the venality had reached.

To Pollack and Friedman I'd also add that tool Peter Beinart.

[bobbyp]

Jeff Goldberg calls for bombing Iran?

How do you coexist with something like that?

[alphie]

The very notion of bombing Iran strikes me as insane, on any number of grounds, not least moral.

Moral insanity is an apt term.

If Israel had a chance of snuffing out Iran's nuke program with an air strike it would have done it years ago.

If the U.S. could do it, Bush woulda done it.

[Doug M.]

Serious question: who cares what Jeffrey Goldberg thinks?

The Obama administration isn't going to attack Iran, nor either allow Israel to.

Note that the Iranians, not being stupid, have dispersed their nuclear efforts all over the place, to a wide range of hardened facilities. It wouldn't be anything like the Israeli strikes against Osirak or Operation Orchard in Syria. Taking out Iran's nuclear operations would require multiple sorties against tough air defenses.

It's very unlikely to happen; and if it does, it will be because Israel's internal decision-making process has become completely fucked. Jeffrey Goldberg has absolutely nothing to do with that one way or the other.

Doug M.

[chris y]

The Obama administration isn't going to attack Iran, nor either allow Israel to.

But that isn't the point, is it? The Huckabee/Palin administration might, if public opinion looks favourable. So got to get that propaganda geared up in good time.

[someotherdude]

The Republican Party and its brain trust know which big government programs benefit their people...and war is a winner.

It pumps money into all the right constituencies’ coffers.

[Slartibartfast]

Doug M, please refrain from using the f-bomb.

The posting rules unfortunately don't specify which words are verboten, because then they'd be problematic for people's workplace (or other place of Internet acces) filters as well. But the f-bomb does fall squarely into "profanity" category.

Thanks!

[John Thullen]

The f-bomb posting rule should be placed on a sliding scale to track the real unemployment rate.

Why can't the still employed among us loosen their filters a little to accommodate the 17% unemployed who have no use for stinking filters anymore.

I don't think the America of 2010 can withstand the pent-up anger that internet f-bombs represent. Not permitting harmless release of that anger could lead to real bombs.

Maybe the f-bomb benchmark could be commercial real estate vacancies.

With 17% unemployment, it would seem the 83% still employed should be hearing and reading a corresponding increase in f-bombs.

It would keep the lucky ones in touch with the unlucky ones.

The lucky ones might see a spike in f-bombs leaking through at the workplace and call their so-called Congressional reps and tell them, hey, not extending unemployment benefits is causing us a problem, and since we're certainly not going to use our corporate cash hoard to hire anyone soon (good business practice), maybe you guys up there in Capital Hill ought to keep unemployment benefits, among other measures, going (good government practice), so we all avoid the trouble that is coming.

[wj]

When it comes to attacking Iran,
a) the US won't under an Obama administration. (What a Republican administration might do depends on who is in it. Palin might well; some others probably would not.)
b) the US likewise won't "green-light" Israel doing the attack. Way too much to lose, and the odds of success are way too low.

Unfortunately, I could easily see Netanyahu deciding to attack anyway, figuring that the US won't do anything material about it after the fact. Who knows, he might be right about that...even absent Goldberg et al. ramping up propaganda ahead of time.

[cleek]

I could easily see Netanyahu deciding to attack anyway, figuring that the US won't do anything material about it after the fact

our government would defend Israel if it attacked Boston.

[Eric Martin]

heh

[Ugh]

heh

@#$@#$@# Yankee Fan!

[Eric Martin]

Shouldn't you be attending to all your patients jamming up the local area hospitals Ugh?