Benny Morris Justifies Israel's Coming Attack on Iran
On Friday July 18 the New York Times published an op-ed by the Israeli historian Benny Morris. It is entitled "Using Bombs to Stave Off War." Morris chose this American venue to announce that Israel would "almost surely" attack Iran some time in the next few months. And he indicated that America would be well advised to support the attack.
The reputation of Benny Morris is founded on unquestioned scholarly achievement and a far more dubious political stance. As one of Israel's "new historians," he recovered the record of harassment, murder, and expulsion of the Palestinians in the war of independence -- a finding that largely discredits the Israeli myth that the inhabitants fled from their own timidity, or because they were told to flee by Arab governments.
But speaking as an Israeli citizen, more recently, Morris has declared his view that the mistake of Ben-Gurion and the leadership of 1948 was that they did not carry the expulsion of the Palestinians all the way. Morris sees Israel in 2008 as a state under perpetual siege and the focus of a clash of civilizations; he sees Palestinians -- and to a degree, all Arabs; and Iranians, too -- as a species of animals not yet inducted into full humanity. Thus in a well-known interview
with Ari Shavit, published in Haaretz on January 5, 2004, Morris described the Israeli problem with the Palestinians:
"Something like a cage has to be built for them. I know that sounds terrible. It is really cruel. But there is no choice. There is a wild animal there that has to be locked up in one way or another."
In the years since Benny Morris spoke those words, the construction of the Israeli wall in the West Bank, and the blockade of Gaza by land, sea, and air have created the cage he believed was necessary.
Now, writing from Israel for the American newspaper of record, Morris offers his advice concerning the proper treatment of Iran and Iranians. Since Iran is five years from being able to make a nuclear bomb (Morris says one-to-four years), Israel is compelled to bomb Iran "in the next four to seven months."
One may notice that the Israeli attack goes on a much faster schedule than the Iranian pace of research and discovery. Why the haste for destruction? Could it have something to do with the American presidential election of 2008 (which comes at Morris's four-month lower limit), or something to do with the inauguration of a new president in 2009 (thirty days before his upper limit of seven months)? Morris does not say. He writes, he says, because people need to realize that the success of Israel's coming "conventional assault" on Iran will be good for Israel, for the United States, and even for Iran. If, on the other hand, this conventional assault fails, Israel will some day launch a nuclear attack; and that will be less good.
The choice, Morris concludes, lies with the rest of the world, and especially with the United States. If Iran does not submit rapidly to the next round of international pressure, the world had better support Israel and hope for the success of its first aerial assault against Iran.
Morris confesses, or implies, one reservation. It would better if the United States could launch the attack. But, being realistic, he remarks the lack of enthusiasm among Americans "for wars in the Islamic lands."
"Which leaves," says Morris, "only Israel."
There is an irritant driving this article, a motive more deeply lodged than Morris is willing to avow. For he suspects Israel alone cannot do the job well enough. So having first dismissed the U.S. and the American public as faint-hearted and unequipped for "wars in Islamic lands," and having then come half way to ask again, Morris at last accuses the United States. If we do not soon intervene, and attack Iran as he counsels, the result will be further nuclear progress by Iran. This will be terminated eventually with a nuclear attack by Israel against Iran.
A nuclear attack on a nation of seventy million people (a great many of them innocent of the desire to wipe Israel off the map) is morally indefensible. How can Morris defend it? He can because he knows -- not believes but metaphysically knows -- that the moment that Iran comes into possession of its first weapon, the leaders of Iran will commit national suicide in order to obtain the pleasure of destroying Israel.
Morris alludes to his ulterior knowledge in two sentences so full of blandness, abstract jargon, and bureaucratic euphemism that their meaning is not initially clear; but if one reads with care, one sees that the message is never in doubt:
"Given the fundamentalist, self-sacrificing mindset of the mullahs who run Iran, Israel knows that deterrence may not work as well as it did with the comparatively rational men who ran the Kremlin and the White House during the cold war. They are likely to use any bomb they build."
Iran will use a nuclear bomb, Morris is sure, as soon as it has one, even knowing that to do so means the destruction of Iran. The Mullahs will do it because that is the kind of people they are.
Here then is the way around the charge that Israel, in attacking Iran some time before March 2009, will be committing a crime. By Morris's logic the attack by Israel will be an act of self-defense. Indeed, it will be preemptive -- hardly more than common sense -- given the knowledge that Benny Morris possesses of the "fundamentalist, self-sacrificing" nature of the leaders of Iran. No evidence for his intuition is ever offered -- evidence from (say) the history of Iranian foreign policy over the past fifty years, or 200; evidence founded on actions rather than words. What if Iran's words since 1979 have been wilder than its deeds? What if Israel's actions since 2002 have been wilder than its words (wilder, even, than Benny Morris's words of 2004)? These findings could not possibly touch the argument. Morris writes as a man in possession of a racial and religious knowledge that is superior to evidence.
Of course, he hopes that Israel will not be forced to go all the way (though he has deplored Ben-Gurion's failure to go all the way with expulsion of the Palestinians). He imagines most Iranians would prefer not to see "Iran turned into a nuclear wasteland." Morris has thus given the readers of the New York Times a vision of a hellish future, but then atoned for the extravagance by suggesting that, if things fall out so, it will be the fault of Iran and the United States. Israel will have done the best it could with a monstrous and implacable enemy and a reluctant ally.
All circumstances taken together, this New York Times op-ed by Benny Morris is at once the most overt and the most peculiar intervention we Americans have witnessed thus far, by an Israeli attempting to influence U.S. policy in the Middle East. The article is weakly founded on partial facts and conjectural truths. It passes without transition from mock-prudential calculations to a tyrannical threat to destroy a civilization for the good of the world. Yet, though unpersuasive, it acquires significance when published between a recent visit to the U.S. by the Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert and the current visit by the defense minister Ehud Barak. Morris's article is meant to be read in the context of such recent assurances as Olmert's, for example, that President Bush "understands the severity of the Iranian threat and the need to vanquish it, and
intends to act on that matter before the end of his term in the White House."
But let us return for a last look at Benny Morris.
No person into whose mind had entered the idea that an Iranian may be a human being--and that there are millions of innocent Iranians -- could have generated with such casual facility the image of Iran as a "nuclear wasteland." Yet this was the image of Iran that the Israeli Benny Morris decided to conjure up for American readers in the New York Times.
In the Haaretz interview of January 5, 2004, the following exchange occurred between the interviewer Ari Shavit and Benny Morris:
"Would you describe yourself as an apocalyptic person?"
"The whole Zionist project is apocalyptic. It exists within hostile surroundings and in a certain sense its existence is unreasonable. It wasn't reasonable for it to succeed in 1881 and it wasn't reasonable for it to succeed in 1948 and it's not reasonable that it will succeed now. Nevertheless, it has come this far. In a certain way it is miraculous. I live the events of 1948, and 1948 projects itself on what could happen here. Yes, I think of Armageddon. It's possible. Within the next 20 years there could be an atomic war here."
This apocalyptic danger Morris may conceive himself to have put off a few more years by writing an editorial on behalf of Israel's coming attack. But whether the attack on Iran comes sooner or later, whether it is executed by Israel or the U.S. or both, and whether carried out with conventional or nuclear weapons, Morris has no doubt of one thing. It will have served the "apocalyptic" vision of the "whole Zionist project," and it will coincide with the highest values of
humanity properly defined.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
You are assuming that (a) an attack on Iran from Israel is imminent and that (b) Israel would do Bush's bidding without taking into account what's good for the Israeli people. I don't think Israel wants to attack Iran. I think Bush and Cheney get rises in their drawers over the idea of Israel doing America's (read their) work for them.
You have it backwards. It seems to me that Bush and Cheney are eager to do Israel's bidding. McCain's on the same page.
A way to increase McCain's chances in November is for Israel to attack Iran. Will it happen in October or November? I doubt it. My guess is that it happens sooner, if it happens. Let's hope that it doesn't happen at all.
Wow.
For a historian to spout this crap is amazing. For an Israeli historian to do so is astonishing.
Doesn't he realize how much his words about the Palestinians parallel the speeches of Hitler prior to Crystal-Nacht? The parts about Iran sound EXACTLY like how Hitler described the USSR in 1940 (Hitler thought the western powers would "assist" him in the invasion of the USSR too.)
I guess what goes around comes around.
"I guess what goes around comes around." -- Well, not exactly. Hitler was the leader of his country willing and able to act on his words. Benny Morris is a somewhat discredited historian popping off.
To be clear I don't like what he has to say either. It represents some of the more vile thinking that resides in that corner of the world. But it doesn't amount to any sort of official Israeli opinion or policy.
You could find Hitler like sentiments among random segments of the population in any country on Earth. Moreover, the historical research that Morris conducted regarding the early days of Israel's existence has put him well outside the collection of folks that the more right wing Israeli politicians will listen to.
"Benny Morris is a somewhat discredited historian popping off.
Discredited by who?
Is it now the far left who only a year ago hailed Benny Morris as the biggest thing since sliced bread, or discredited by the mainstream who always said his take on the 1948 war was skewed?
Yep, its just like the far left (fascists) who throw you right under the bus the moment you cross them. No matter what your life's work has been about or your entire reputaion. When you cross the far Left, out you go.
Despicable behavior from a group who profess to see truth and justice. As long as it's their particular version of truth.
BET on it...what goes around does come around. Sadly, too many citizens of the world do not understand this and particularly, do not know of or understand most of the dasdartly deeds done by their governments. USA INCLUDED.
An unprovoked attack on a sovereign nation by another sovereign nation is unforgiveable. That was the case with our attack on Iraq just as it would be true if Iran attacks Israel or Israel attacks Iran. It would be suicidal folly.
Very likely, al-maliki's recent demand for troop withdrawal is spurred in part by his (and other Iraqis') refusal to allow Iraq's airspace violated, or territory used as a staging ground for Israeli/American attacks on Iran. Al-maliki's Dawa party is the party in Iraq with the closest ties to Iran (but I doubt ANY Iraqis relish the thought of their nation being used in such a way by America and/or Israel). Ironically, from the Bush Administration's point of view, al-Maliki has been able to unify his Parliament on a platform of non-aggression to Iran.
All of those military bases in Iraq weren't going to be used just to guard oil wells. They were to be used in a planned attack on Iran. Al-maliki isn't stupid. In fact, he has a great deal of leverage right now, and knows he has to use it while he can.
People want their death, and YOURS, TOO.
Further evidence of the insanity of the human ego deformed by Special-ness, and religion.
What has been clear for some time is that,in the world according to Benny Morris and more than a few others, the potential for conventional weapons to destroy the perceived threat from Iranian nuclear technology development and the intellectual development that accompanies it with any certitude is marginal.
The real issue here is the placing into public discourse from an Israeli source rather than an American one the potential of first use of nuclear weapons against Iran. In order to inflict a level of destruction upon Iranian infrastructure that would leave no doubt as to Iranian capability to reconstitute or protect vital materials, industrial capacity & human capital would require the use of nuclear arms according to the thinking of Benny and his like minded associates.
When one considers what it is exactly that Benny Morris and the other folks that hold his view on this question believe then the whole question of American or Israeli conventional military capacity to seize & hold key areas of Iranian territory becomes irrelevant to the discussion.
To this end then the tipping point could be a hostile act committed by any number of groups that Israel & America hold are extensions of Iranian Foreign & Military policy anywhere that in any way directly or indirectly appear to impact the interests of either or both nations and the bombers could well be on their way.
Mr.Morris reasoning sounds suicidal and he wants to take the world with him. Will someone who is not suicidal and favors Mr. Morris' view, please explain how this willl lead to ultimate Israeli survival?
It won't. Guess he bought into the "rapture" thing.
Why must discussions of these subjects be continually presented in black and white. For example, the author states two absolutes in the second paragraph which are both incorrect in their absoluteness:
1) "The reputation of Benny Morris is founded on unquestioned scholarly achievement ". This is an unneeded overstatement. Lost of people question Morris's scholarship. I'm not challenging it here. I don't have the knowledge to do so. But I do know enough to know that he is controversial not just because of his conclusions but also because of his methodologies.
2) "a finding that largely discredits the Israeli myth that the inhabitants fled from their own timidity, or because they were told to flee by Arab governments." That's not true according to Morris. His research has discredited the myth that ALL of the Arabs fled on their own. He puts the number of Arabs that were compelled to flee by Zionists actions at around 200,000. The estimate of Arabs that fled from the newly born state of Israel is between 450,000 and 750,000. That means that, according to Morris, over half of the fleeing Arabs did not do so because of "Zionist aggression". Additionally, Morris agrees that Arab leaders and Arab media told the local Arab population to get out of the way.
Sadly, most people who comment on the situation choose to try to reduce it down to one side being blameless and the other side being all at fault. It doesn't help anyone to do that.
Bingo. It's what is called in psycholgy, "splitting." Splitting means to see the world in black and white, as all-good or all-bad, all to blame and blameless. Many of the bloggers here do seem to split the Arab-Israeli conflict into one side all good, the other all bad.
pkafin
I dont think Ben Morris found any proof that Arab leaders told the people they had to leave , on the contrary they were told to say or their will be punished .
Some people in Deir yassin and around Deir yassin were threatened by the Hagannah on radio that their fate will be the same , (they even exagerated the numbers of dead to 250 on Jerusalem post of the time , to frighten them ) but some remained . You may find this page interesting it quotes Morris
http://www.palestineremembered.com/Acre/Palestine-Remembered/Story412.html
Huffy fan,
Morris didn't have to "find" any proof. It's already been found. It never was hidden. Here are a few examples of the well known quotes:
Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Said: "We will smash the country with our guns and obliterate every place the Jews seek shelter in. The Arabs should conduct their wives and children to safe areas until the fighting has died down."
Habib Issa in the New York Lebanese paper, Al Hoda (June 8, 1951) quotes Azzam Pasha, Secretary-General of the Arab League: "...for it would be a simple matter to throw the Jews into the Mediterranean .... Brotherly advice was given to the Arabs of Palestine to leave their land, homes and property and to stay temporarily in neighboring fraternal states, lest the guns of the invading Arab armies mow them down."
Mahmud Al-Habbash, a regular writer in the official PA paper, Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, indicates in his column “The Pulse of Life” :
“…The leaders and the elites promised us at the beginning of the “Catastrophe” [[he establishment of Israel and the creation of refugee problem] in 1948, that the duration of the exile will not be long, and that it will not last more than a few days or months, and afterwards the refugees will return to their homes, which most of them did not leave only until they put their trust in those “Arkuvian” promises made by the leaders and the political elites.
AND, the Native Americans all voluntarily, out of the goodness of their hearts, gave the European settlers the vast majority of this land, and themselves agreed to be displaced onto small, arid, impoverished reservations, and to have their human rights and cultural structures stripped away. Amazing how generous some peoples can be.
it is cognitive dissonance on a Universal scale on display...it is amazing how 'selectively objective" people can be isn't it Liz?
Problem is, as I see it, that the Israelis seem to have taken the Holocaust out on the Palestinians who had nothing to do with it.
Why is it that you never hear anything from an Israeli about how rotten the Germans were and are and threaten to blow them up with their Nukes ?
Why is it that you never hear them go after the European Nations that have driven them out of their Countries throughout modern History ?
It's always the Palestinians, it'll always be the Palestinians.
These folks are not well, they're out of balance; leave them alone to fight their never-ending wars and ignore them.
The world doesn't revolve around them and their problems; everyone has problems.
"It's always the Palestinians, it'll always be the Palestinians."
I think you have it backwards
Upon the Declaration of the State of Israel after the UN vote in 1948, the Arabs declared war.
The Israelis begged the Arabs to stay and help build the country together.
The Arabs lost.
Then they tried again in 1967 and lost and finally again in 1973 and lost.
More of GZLives' disingenuous and fasle historical cliff notes in a nutshell folks.
Tell us again how the Israelies begged.. when they massacred Arabs and ejected them before '48 or after they continued the brutality in '48?
What fairytale land "history" books have you been reading? Or is this just sarcasm to the extreme?
I don't know where you get your information from. However, what you are writing is sorely misguided.
First of all, German atrocities are thoroughly understood and discussed from both a Jewish and an Israeli perspective.
Secondly, Israel is not threatening to nuke the Palestinians. Nor are they threatening to nuke the Iranians. They have never threatened to up and "nuke" anyone. They are considering a conventional strike against Iran to prevent them from obtaining nukes which they reasonably believe could be used against them in a non-defensive strike.
Thirdly, The Israelis did "go after" the Germans and other European nations after WWII. Many Nazi's were captured and tried. Eichman in particular was captured, brought to Israel, tried, and in the only case of Israel imposing capital punishment, executed. Economically, Germany was forced to pay reparations.
Fourth, Israel's major wars have been against Egypt, Syria, and to a lesser extent Jordan. The War in the summer of 2006 was against Hezbullah in Lebanon. None of these folks consider themselves Palestinian.
Fifth, about 20% of Israel's citizens are Palestinian Arabs. They have full rights under the law, they vote, they own land, they hold public office. They are, for the most part, not considered an enemy, but rather an important minority.
Lastly, you are correct, the world does not revolve around the Israelis. But then again, Israelis don't think that it does. Only their enemies think it does.
Yes Israel does have a 20% arab population, that doesnt mean they are treated the same, in fact, they are second class citizens in that country and extremely discriminated against living in poverty and shantytown like regions.
The fact is, Israel is in a situation where its a country that rules over more or less equal populations of Jews and non-Jews, and it privileges Jews over non-Jews, it gives rights to Jews over non-Jews.
Israel cannot be a democracy in the western sense. The fact that most Israelis and their leaders call for Israel to be a "Jewish state" precludes any real democracy. Whenever Israel appears on a list of democracies, it should be appended that Israel is a democracy for Jews only.
Again-- while I agree with overall thrust here, how is "being fairer to the Palestinians" (obviously to be recommended) joined to "considering how rotten the Germans are/were"? I'm Jewish myself, and believe me the Jewish people have been kicked out of or massacred by countless peoples throughout history-- the Babylonians, Assyrians, Romans, Russians, French, English, Polish, Spanish Inquisitioners, we've suffered pogroms, expulsions, mass murders in all of them. If anything, Germany was the one place in Europe where Jews were treated with respect, until the Nazis weaseled their way into power (with their hatred for other Gentiles as much as Jews)-- that was a historical anomaly, not the result of some "deep-seated German anti-Semitism." (The Daniel Jonah Goldhagen hypothesis, FWIW, has been fully debunked 1,000 times over.)
By all means, there needs to be peaceful coexistence of the region and greater respect for the basic human rights of the Palestinian people. But this doesn't mean pointing fingers and hating anybody else in their stead. That's only going to cause the problem to worsen further.
It's called "blame the victim"...and, unfortunately, it often works. As for your post, thank you, thank you, thank you.
Excellent point!
The tragedy of Jewish history in the common era continues. One manifestation of that tragedy is the almost unanimous disdain, at best, and naked hate, at worst, towards Isreal expressed in these blogs responding to Mr. Bromwich's article.
Sabre-rattling is ugly by anybody but Mr. Bromwich and his supporters, found here in abundance, find fault only with the Jews while excusing or ignoring the mortal threats of Moslems all over the Middle East and, in particular, Iran.
Just a guess: When it's time to take out Iran's nuclear capabilities it won't be nuclear bombs, or even high-explosive ones, but rather carefully pin-pointed sabotage committed by you-know-who.
Your comment is illogical: how do you conclude the Mr. Bromwich is the one rattling a sabre? He has not hinted at any action to punish Israel, but Benny Morris has called for an attack on the people of Iran. And it's Benny Morris who invokes the future of a "nuclear wasteland" in Iran.
So how is it Bromwich who has rattled a sabre??
This is indeed one of the most difficult issues in the world today. But to claim hate is the guiding force of everyone critical of Israel is just plain lazy.
Iran is a rational country and has demonstrated it in many occasions. If you do not agree, I cannot help. We already know Iran had stopped their nuclear weapons program in 2003. Let"s put away the rumors for a moment. What is the chance Iran has resumed their nuclear weapons program? Let it be 20%. What is the chance they may use it against Israel? Let it be 10%. Now what would happen to theses percentages after Iran is attacked? If they would go much higher, do you think attacking Iran would make sense and is a wise decision? Incidentally, for your information, July 2, 2008 was the 20th. Anniversary of the shooting down (by two American Cruise Missiles) an Iran Air passenger plane flying over Persian Gulf. All 290 passengers and crews were killed. Only one hundred bodies were recovered. Did Iran exhibited any agression in response. The fact this is news to you, tells you how rational Iran can be.
Yup. Iran hasn't attacked another country since the 18th century. Except if you count the marginal assistance it gave to the US in getting rid of the taliban in neighboring Afghanistan.
And the idea that Iranians want to destroy Israel is so ridiculous. It's all based on a mistranslation of one single sentence of Ahmadinejad, where he in fact said that the Israeli apartheid regime should disappear - not Israel as a country. (By contrast there are mountains of quotes from Israelis and Americans alike where they talk about destroying Iran - not the government, the country. And that, presumably, is civilized behavior.)
The mullahs are thoroughly dislikable, but that doesn't mean they're madmen. I'd say there's a more than 20% chance they have or will resume their nuclear programme - for reasons of prestige and as a means of defense against countries (the US and Israel) which it does not threaten and never has threatened, but which keep rattling their sabers nonetheless. But there is a zero point zero chance that they will use nukes. Certainly not against Israel which is not precisely the country that interests them most.
Are you writing about the AIR INDIA flight. The most likely decided theory was that information overload occured on the frigate or destroyer of the USA NAVY led to poor decisions by the captains of those ships.
Well, so much for being a peaceful country. Did we really do that? Shame on us. Kind of makes Lockerbee a draw, doesn't it?
We dont need to speculate, thats the thing. 16 U.S. spy agencies concluded Iran was not a threat. Even though our media is galvanizing us for another war, why is it so hard for people to remember the NIE report?
now, did or will the nytimes publish a counter point of view article? and i don't mean in the saturday paper, which is probably the lowest circulation day.
should the nytimes be called to task?
Why bother? Just put it in the same file with the Enquirer.
"Morris alludes to his ulterior knowledge in two sentences so full of blandness, abstract jargon, and bureaucratic euphemism that their meaning is not initially clear; ..."
' "Given the fundamentalist, self-sacrificing mindset of the mullahs who run Iran, Israel knows that deterrence may not work as well as it did with the comparatively rational men who ran the Kremlin and the White House during the cold war. They are likely to use any bomb they build." '
No blandness, no abstract jargon, no bureacratic euphemism; immediately and totally clear. As for "comparitively rational," you can't compare 2oth century rationality with the mullahs' 7th century conditioning.
"Iran will use a nuclear bomb, Morris is sure, as soon as it has one, even knowing that to do so means the destruction of Iran. The Mullahs will do it because that is the kind of people they are."
Quite a jump from "likely to use..." to "sure"? "Deterrence may not work..." doesn't sound like "sure" to me. Anyway, the mullahs would nuke Israel for a promise of 72 virgins (each).
Did Morris say that he wants all this stuff to happen? In all your quotes and characterizations, he just describes a plausible future.
Bill Clinton's wife said, "We could totally obliterate (Iran)," and magniloquent, done-nothing greenhorn senator Obama agreed that he would go for that if some crazy turn of events leaves us with him as Commander in Chief. Morris just goes into a little more detail.
I do not remember Obama ever saying he would "go for that." Please furnish a reference.
Good for you. He didn't say that. I didn't say or imply that he said that. Speaking of references, you can find "paraphrase" in any English Language dictionary.
He did say that he'd do "absolutely anything" to prevent Iran's deployment of nuclear weapons. I'l be just sick if you tell me you can't see how "totally obliterate" is a part of "absolutely anything." Humans ought to be brighter than that.
If you are going to quote them then you should do it accurately. Hilary Clinton said that if Iran attacked Israel then we retaliate. She made no mention of the imperial justification of preemptive attacks. The very idea of aggressively attacking another country for some supposed harm they might do you some non-specific time in the future is just a rationalization for conquest. Morris made the point that they may have to attack on their own in 4-6 months (before GW has to leave). If we do not participate and help them, he is making the case that they would be forced to use nuclear weapons against another country that does not have nuclear weapons. The very clear message to all Arab countries, if you don't have nukes, you better get some before Israel sees you as some kind of threat.
Mr. Bromwich, the biggest problem I have with this vision is that it seems to be that the "tail" of religion is wagging the "secular" dog that is Western Democracy. We are told that society's belief in a Supernatural being is THE most important ingredient in dertermining who or who is not fit to maintain a nuclear arsenal. Iran is a "root" problem to the West that will never be "solved" until either Christianity or Islam rule supreme.
When Iran tolerated and encouraged Western thought under the Shah the U.S. had no problem with delivering the "seeds" of a nuclear program to Iran.
NorCalNative
When Iran tolerated and encouraged Western thought under the Shah the U.S. had no problem with delivering the "seeds" of a nuclear program to Iran.
Good point.
MADNESS.
The US is under the body-snatchers-like control of the multinational corporations led by teh oil companies. Israel is suffering from a group insanity which believes that ethnic cleansing and atomic war are preferable to accepting the fact that Israel, in order to survive, must live within its own borders and at peace with its neighbors.
Most US citizens, a large percentage of Israelis, and the entire rest of the world know that an attack on Iran could very well be the end of civilization as we know it. Yet we seem to be trapped in a nightmare that is inexorably leading to Armageddon. I feel like I woke up one dark day in 2000 to a Bizarro world where sanity and reason have no place. I literally fear that we are living in the last days of civilization.
One good thing: If Iran is attacked, then industrial society will collapse, and at least we won't have to worry about global warming any more...
The New Yorker Obama cover inspired this. The Benny Morris op-ed is making fun of the lunatic "pre-emptive war" devotees who will destroy themselves before someone else does it to them.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
