Thursday
Aug122010
Iran-Israel-US: Goldberg Journalism "If You Build This War, It Will Come"
Thursday, August 12, 2010 at 10:38 
I have read the "analysis" that may well dominate US-based chatter today: Jeffrey Goldberg's lengthy projection of high-level Israeli opinion on a aerial attack on Iran.Here's Goldberg's hook-line:
What is [most] likely...is that one day next spring, the Israeli national-security adviser, Uzi Arad, and the Israeli defense minister, Ehud Barak, will simultaneously telephone their counterparts at the White House and the Pentagon, to inform them that their prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has just ordered roughly one hundred F-15Es, F-16Is, F-16Cs, and other aircraft of the Israeli air force to fly east toward Iran --- possibly by crossing Saudi Arabia, possibly by threading the border between Syria and Turkey, and possibly by traveling directly through Iraq’s airspace, though it is crowded with American aircraft.
Let's call this for what it is. Jeffrey Goldberg is not functioning as an analyst here. He is not even carrying out the fundamental task of a reporter. He is serving as a spokesman for the Israeli Government in its attempt to put psychological pressure on Iran, to block any resumption of talks on uranium enrichment, and possibly to push Washington into acceptance of, if not support for, Israel's military action.
Goldberg's piece has no substance as a critique of the political, diplomatic, and military situation, for it is void of any information of --- as opposed to rhetoric about --- the state of Iran's nuclear programme and its international strategy. It is void of any information about Washington's perspective and approach, including the option --- very much "on the table", to use the cliche invoked for military action --- of discussions with Tehran.
"The Arabs" do appear for a couple of sentences, but only to have their perspectives simplified and twisted into support of an Israeli attack.
Goldberg's sole attention is to pass on and elevate the rhetoric of the Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, and his advisors. (The author claims authority from 40+ interviews with Israelis inside and outside the government, but they are merely murmurs amidst the loud declarations of Netanyahu and equally loud projection by Goldberg.)
It may well be that Israel has decided on military action by next spring, but we don't know that and neither does Goldberg. All we really know --- and I hope, for the sake of some integrity, so does he --- is that the Israeli leadership want him to think that.
And they want him to write that --- in an "intellectual" US periodical, where the New York-Washington political corridor will pick this us as received wisdom, rather than a slick propaganda operation.
I don't write this note as a rejection of the military option. However, if a writer is going to advocate that option, it should be done so openly and honestly, not disguised as "reportage". It should be done so on the basis of information from a range of sources, locations, and perspectives, not as a conduit for the manoeuvres of one actor in the political drama.
If Goldberg's piece receives undeserved attention as a considered definition of the state of the Iran-Israel-US relationship, then I will post a detailed dissection of its artifices and distortions.
But not now. Because for me, if one is concerned with news and, indeed, issues of justice and humanity, there are matters far more important --- yes, more important than boys-and-toys posturing on aerial warfare --- to attend to today, tomorrow, and the day after that.
Reader Comments (22)
Goldberg - shmoldberg. Forget him, already!
I have it from a very good source that Israel will not attack Iran (first):
http://www.granma.cu/ingles/reflections-i/11agost-reflections.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.granma.cu/ingles/reflections-i/11ago...
;-)
Here is Steve Clemons' (The Washington Note) take on the Goldberg piece, first posted in the 10 August Iran thread by WitteKr:
http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/2010/08/an_israeli_stri/" rel="nofollow">http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/2010/...
RE: “The Arabs” do appear for a couple of sentences, but only to have their perspectives simplified and twisted into support of an Israeli attack
Clear and visually attractive presentation of the main findings of the 2010 Arab Public Opinion Poll, Views on United States, Israel and Iran:
http://payvand.com/blog/blog/2010/08/09/2010-arab-public-opinion-poll-views-on-united-states-israel-and-iran/" rel="nofollow">http://payvand.com/blog/blog/2010/08/09/2010-ar...
I didn't even realise there WAS a Whitehouse or State Dept Ramadan message this year!
And of course at least one Leverett had to respond to the Goldberg article:
The Weak Case for War with Iran
Jeffrey Goldberg's new article in the Atlantic is deeply reported -- and deeply wrong about the Middle East. But it's his misunderstanding of America that is most dangerous of all.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/08/11/the_weak_case_for_war_with_iran?page=full" rel="nofollow">http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/08/1...
It's an irresponsibly written piece, but this is what we have come to expect from The Atlantic.
Another example here -- http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/07/the-end-of-men/8135/" rel="nofollow">http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/201...
What ON EARTH did that have to do with ANYTHING?
Oh no, not changing gender roles and more successful women! Soon enough, we'll be using those unisex bathrooms Phyllis Schlafly warned us about.
How propagandists function: Exhibit A
Glenn Greenwald
http://www.salon.com/news/iran/?story=/opinion/greenwald/2010/08/12/goldberg" rel="nofollow">http://www.salon.com/news/iran/?story=/opinion/...
The end of men? Come on... It's just another irresponsibly written article from The Atlantic. It's worse than Goldberg's article.
Who believes the news media anymore?
Hmmm - I am no academic - nor do I lay claim to any superior intellect - but I regard Goldberg's article as no more, no less, no better and no worse than a million other media and blogosphere articles written by all the "talking head" journos and academics. Most of them think that they know all - while knowing no more than anyone else.
As a mere member of the general public, I found his article to be quite interesting to read - mind you, I am not one to ignore large elephants in the room, fearful that the elephant might wake up if we talk about it.
Thank you EA for bringing this article to my attention.
Barry
Mainstreaming war with Iran
Stephen M. Walt
".... I'd just like to highlight what's really going on here. Although Goldberg does not explicitly call for the United States to attack Iran and is careful to acknowledge the potential downsides of this option, the tone and thrust of the article is clearly intended to nudge the Obama administration toward an attack. He emphasizes that attacking Iran's nuclear facilities would be very difficult for Israel (some analysts think it is it is essentially impossible), but says it would be easy for the United States. He reminds us that Obama has repeatedly said that Iran with nuclear weapons would be "unacceptable," and suggests that both Israel and various Arab states have real doubts about Obama's toughness."
More: http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/08/11/mainstreaming_war_with_iran" rel="nofollow">http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/08/11/...
RE: “The Arabs” do appear for a couple of sentences, but only to have their perspectives simplified and twisted into support of an Israeli attack.
I found no evidence of this in the article linked to (http://mideast.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/08/11/what_do_arabs_really_think_about_iran" rel="nofollow">http://mideast.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/08/...), rather :"Arab governments are allying their long-term strategic interests with those identified by President Obama (an Israeli-Arab peace and Middle East stability) and not with those of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu."
"He reminds us that Obama has repeatedly said that Iran with nuclear weapons would be "unacceptable," "
Perhaps this is not a "hawk" trying to get something done - but merely a person who thinks that the time is approaching for Obama to mature from being just an orator (as outstanding as he was during the election campaign) and to mean what he says ( he IS now the US President and no longer a simple Senator or a Community organiser. He now has what he wished for - there are no easy ways out of anything for him.
Barry
Barry,
This is why Obama is getting clobbered from all sides - everyone wants
him to make good on every single thing he's said duing the campaign and
afterwards :-).
I agree with you that Goldberg's article is a fascinating read, but I'm
also grateful for the context his critics have provided.
Catherine
"everyone wants him to make good on every single thing he's said during the campaign and afterwards"
Is that a good thing or a bad thing?? I can imagine that the job of US President looked so simple when he was outside the goldfish bowl looking in at President Bush (the goldfish) . I am sure that there are MANY others like that as well - but as is said "Be careful what you wish for"
Barry
More on the Goldeberg article, this time by Matt Duss of the Wonk Room:
What Would An Attack On Iran Really Achieve?
http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2010/08/11/what-would-an-attack-on-iran-really-achieve/" rel="nofollow">http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2010/08/11/wh...
Good or bad - I don't know. It's just a fact that everyone's trying to cash in their chips, so to speak, based on how invested they became in Obama's campaign promises. It just goes to show how effective he was at seeming all things to all people. As he put it himself during his campaign, he was a clean canvas upon which voters could paint what they wanted (or something close those words).
OK - this is my last post on this subject, but I couldn't resist this one. Authors Michael Eisenstadt and David Crist now complete the circle by arguiing that it won't be either The US or Israel who cause a dust-up with Iran, but IRAN who will strike the blow that sets off an international conflict.
(I love the photo at the top, with General Firouzabadi daydreaming of Chelo Kebab, Dizi and Biriani, while the others pay attention to the event they're presiding!)
It's Time to Get Tough on Iran
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/08/11/its_time_to_get_tough_on_iran?print=yes&hidecomments=yes&page=full" rel="nofollow">http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/08/1...
Catherine
Thanks for that link. I would not be surprised if the Iranian Regime does eventually do something (silly) - probably in reaction to these latest sanctions. I can imagine them "closing" the Straits of Hormuz to commercial shipping and daring the US to do something about it. It would be then quite a challenge to the US ( and other western powers) to come up with an answer to such a thing, apart from the mass bombing of all Iranian bases along the shores of the Gulf.
We shall have to wait to see what the future holds.
PS as an avid "foodie", now I have to go away and research what Chelo Kebab, Dizi and Biriani are . I know what (Indian food) Biryani is.
Barry
Trita Parsi has written one of the most enlightening (and for me educational) critiques of Goldberg's article I've seen so far.
It covers lots of territory, amongst which the long history of strategic cooperation between Israel and Iran enduring even years of "death to Israel" rhetoric from Iran, how the real threats Iran poses to Israel - even only with a nuclear-capability (without actual weapons) - are not existential and many Israeli officials have admitted the same, and that the aim of this unfolding campaign launched by Goldberg's article may not even be to pressure Obama into military action but to portray Obama as weak and indecisive on national security issues and give the Republicans valuable ammunition for the November congressional elections as well as for the 2012 presidential race.
A campaign for war with Iran begins
If neocons can't get Obama to attack Iran, they are creating a narrative so the next Republican president will
http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2010/08/13/trita_parsi_jeffrey_goldberg/" rel="nofollow">http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/201...
Israeli Generals and Intel Officials Oppose Attack on Iran
Analysis by Gareth Porter
Pro-Israeli journalist Jeffrey Goldberg's article in "The Atlantic" magazine was evidently aimed at showing why the Barack Obama administration should worry that it risks an attack by the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Iran in the coming months unless it takes a much more menacing line toward Iran's nuclear programme.
But the article provides new evidence that senior figures in the Israeli intelligence and military leadership oppose such a strike against Iran and believe that Netanyahu's apocalyptic rhetoric about an Iranian nuclear threat as an "existential threat" is unnecessary and self-defeating.
http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=52482" rel="nofollow">http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=52482
Juan Cole, in a srongly-worded entry, echoes the domestic politcal dimension of the campaign for an Israeli attack on Iran brought up by Trita Parsi:
"...in 1998 at the height of their impotence, the Neocons got up a hawkish letter with the support of the Republicans in Congress, insisting that President Clinton go to war against Iraq. .... Only five years later, under a different administration, they got their wish.
............ A Netanyahu attack on Iran would reduce Barack Obama to a one-term president, which may be what Goldberg and his fellow conspirators are really aiming for. That success would after all allow them to keep to the 5-year timetable for another Asian land war.
http://www.juancole.com/2010/08/an-israeli-attack-on-iran-would-reduce-barack-obama-to-a-one-term-president.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.juancole.com/2010/08/an-israeli-atta...