Professor Benny Morris: Nuclear War to Avoid Nuclear War

In today's New York Times the Israeli academic Benny Morris, in an article fittingly entitled "Using Bombs to Stave Off War," opines that a "preemptive" nuclear conflagration in the Middle East could have some kind of positive outcome for Israel, the United States, and the world. It's a disgraceful piece of intellectual demagoguery based on mind-boggling, and really quite insane, situational ethics. "Israel," Morris's lead begins, "will almost certainly attack Iran's nuclear sites in the next four to seven months."

Later in the piece, he narrows down his prediction for an Israeli military assault on Iran for the period between November 5 and January 19, "ensur[ing] that Israel will have support from a lame-duck White House." Morris's advice is that Israel should finely calibrate its timetable to hit Iran based on American domestic politics. This coordination between Israeli "security" policy and American elections exposes a very strange relationship between the two nations. He also laments the fact that given the debacles in Iraq and Afghanistan, "the American public has little enthusiasm for wars in the Islamic lands."

Professor Morris goes on to argue that the current nuclear standoff with Iran leaves "the world" with only one option: "the military option, meaning an aerial assault by either the United States or Israel." He longs for the United States to give the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) access to air strips in Iraq to carry out the strikes, adding: "The best outcome will be that an Israeli conventional strike, whether failed or not . . . would persuade the Iranians to halt their nuclear program." That notion is the most chimerical, dangerous, and LEAST LIKELY OUTCOME of any IDF strike against Iran. Didn't these Israeli hawks learn anything from the failed "war" in Lebanon in the summer of 2006? Hezbollah, which depends on Iran's largesse, emerged from that encounter stronger than ever, politically and militarily. Just yesterday Israel was forced to ignominiously exchange with Hezbollah live prisoners of war for dead ones. What evidence is there that Iran would be weakened for any period of time from IDF attacks no matter how large-scale they might be?

Morris's circular logic puts Iran and Israel in an inevitable nuclear showdown. He claims Iran, a country that has not invaded any of its neighbors in over 250 years, is so ideologically committed to the destruction of Israel that the moment the Iranians get an atomic bomb they're going to hurl it at Tel Aviv. But he also seems to believe that somehow, miraculously, Iran will be persuaded to dump its nuclear program following a devastating IDF or U.S. assault.

This is dangerous codswallop.

The much more likely scenario is the Iranian government, with its public opinion galvanized after being subjected to unprovoked attack, will rush head-first into building a nuclear weapon as fast as possible as a deterrence to future IDF or U.S. military assaults.

Morris recklessly suggests that if Iran dares to fight back in any way against Israeli or American interests following the IDF's conventional military violence "an Israeli nuclear strike to prevent the Iranians from taking the final steps toward getting the bomb is probable."

So Morris argues that 1). The Iranian regime is so driven by ideology that it will use any nuclear weapon it gets its hands promptly against Israel; 2). The IDF must launch a preemptive military strike against Iran to stop them from getting the bomb; and 3). If Iran reacts to the conventional attack by hitting Israeli or American interests in the region, Israel should, in turn, "respond" to Iran's justified actions in self defense by raining atomic bombs, (which Israel officially denies it possesses), on the heads of the Iranian people.

Morris uses his intellectual gifts to try to construct, with gonzo logic, a patina of legitimacy for a policy that could easily end up killing millions of people.

The terms "preemption" and "self defense" that Israeli hawks like Morris throw around are nothing but euphemisms for aggressive war and military violence (and terrorism) in the pursuit of geopolitical objectives. The IDF failed in Lebanon with a relatively small number of deaths on both sides, with the 1,400 Lebanese civilians paying the highest toll. Yet any confrontation with Iran along the lines Morris seems to be perfectly happy with will not only fail to win any long-term "security" for Israel, it would inevitably result in far higher civilian and military deaths on both sides.

But the craziest part of Morris's argument is his matter-of-fact tone towards Israel using for the first time since Nagasaki the ultimate weapon of mass destruction. For Morris, the Bomb is just another item in the IDF's tool chest. He has no regard for the potential effects of such unthinkable belligerence on the region and on the world. He doesn't entertain the down side of a tiny nation of under 7 million people, with no fixed internationally-recognized borders, (that shouldn't have nuclear weapons in the first place), using them as a means to attain some kind of future "stability" -- under Israel's terms. It's a colonial mindset. These are delusions of grandeur I thought we had moved beyond after the repudiation of the neo-cons in Iraq.

Morris's outrageous, amoral cheerleading for military violence, if followed as "policy," could plunge the world into a large-scale war -- only this time with 21st Century technology on all sides. Such flagrant disregard for the well-being of millions of innocent women and children in the region and in the world should be relegated to pamphlets handed out by homeless guys with tinfoil hats, not found in the opinion section of the New York Times.

Comments

[IntellectuallyHonest]

A nuclear attack on Iran's nuclear 'facilities' might mess up the entire world environment. Depending on whom you talk to, the Iraq War was by and large a product of the pro-Israel lobby in the United States. That war destablized the world and messed up the world economy. A nuclear attack on Iran by Israel would mess up the environment in addition to messing up the world economy. Why does the entire world have to suffer because of the whims of a few hawkish, neo-conservatives? Where is the Jewish opposition to this madness? It's like the lack of German opposition to Adolf Hitler, except now it isn't dangerous to your existence to oppose these nuts.

[Elcaro]

Benny Morris Op-ed in NYTimes is an excellent example of MAD-DOG-PLOY in action.
The recipe: act like a MAD DOG and the world lets you get what you want, however outrageous your demands.
In NYTimes the MAD DOG is barking in the person of Benny Morris.
Will it work?
The Israeli Lobby once even got President Bush to perform the MAD-DOG-GAME, when they had him threaten World War III if it allowed Iran acquire the knowledge to enrich uranium.
The President of United States looked foolish, and the ploy brought him ridicule instead of world compliance.

Likewise, the futile theatrics of Benny Morris turning into a MAD DOG on NYTimes will hardly convince anyone of apocalypse.

[EspressoAtNoon]

Posters interested in this topic should read this great column by Glenn Greenwald (just came out yesterday):

Rendering public opinion irrelevant
by Glenn Greenwald
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/07/20/israel/index.html?source=rss&aim=/opinion/greenwald

[Michale32086]

@BrettnCalgary

}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}
Perhaps they want their rights under the nuclear non proliferation treaty unabridged. Maybe they don't like being bullied by a thug nation that invades, slaughters, and conquers their neighbors. Maybe they think the US is a malevolent hypocrite that has ignored its NPT obligations since the day they signed the treaty. Maybe they read the PNAC declarations and are scared. Maybe they never did threaten to "wipe off the map" anyone else. Maybe they hear what American politicians say about killing their citizens. Bottom line, you are no more right than they are.
}}}}}}}}}}}}}}

That's a LOT of "perhaps" and "maybes"...

And you are willing to risk a nuclear jihad on all of your "perhap"s and "maybe"s???

The simple fact is, Iran could stop ALL of the threats and sabre-rattling by simply agreeing to a nuclear program that is impossible to weaponize and is fully transparent.

The simple fact that Iran DOESN'T agree to this would seem to indicate their intentions.

Michale.....

[BrettnCalgary]

Sure they could, except then the US would make more demands, the US and Israel would keep upping the ante. The neocons want to remake the middle east at the point of a gun, giving into their demands would make the Iranians the appeasers. Nuclear jihad? Well, I guess that is a remote possibility, more probable IF Iran is attacked.

Preemptive war is wrong, if you don't get it, well, I pity you as I pity all soulless war mongers.

[Michale32086]

So, you are claiming that if the world would allow Iran to have nuclear weapons, the Iran would, ALL OF THE SUDDEN, quit making threats against Israel and quit supporting terrorist orgainizations like Hamas and Hezbollah..

Is THAT what you are trying to claim??

If so, please cite your evidence that this would be the case..

Michale.....

[nk007]

Michale

Why only Iran? Why not include all the countries with nuclear weapons? I just don't understand the ethics and logic of why those with nuclear weapons are the ones loudly condemning Iran for trying to be like them. It is just like a bank robber sitting in judgement and condemning ant one else who may attempt to robe a bank.

[TheRationalLeft]

Interestingly, the article written by Benny Morris, has the opposite effect: it's a public warning to Iran that saber-rattling is over and it's time for diplomatic initiative. Hence, he warns Iran that should they not cooperate, Israel still HAS military option on the table despite its high cost. For more analysis of this, read my blog about it, here:
http://rationalleft.com/2008/07/21/benny-morris-a-mad-man-or-a-tactical-tool/

[KPinSEA]

If Iran really sees enriching its own uranium as a sovereign right (and why not, we do), they seem to have a clear option as a public negotiating stance that they have not adopted:

"We'll agree to any inspection, enrichment limitation, and arms limitation regime Israel agrees to. Period."

This signals a willingness to negotiate, for the purposes of public relations, while insuring that they will be able to continue to enrich uranium for years to come, knowing the Israelis are hardly going to agree to any inspection regime or limitation of their sovereignty.

But so long as Iran's neighbors continue to proliferate nuclear weapons and stoke a regional arms race, I can't for the life of me figure out how anyone can realistically expect them to abandon the sovereign rights that we take for granted. It's delusional. Oh right ... standard operating procedure in our foreign policy, in other words.

[frl]

what happened to all the comments?

[antenna123]

The only good note in this is that the New York Times' readership and revenue continues to plummet. Their ad revenues were down 11% in May, relative to what they were a year ago.

In an age where we have places like HuffPo, NY Times = 2nd rate and they prove it with their editorials.

[midtown]

For Israel to create WWIII and invite nuclear war to the shores of the USA is beyond belief. Israel will be despised. Reviled. Arguments about 'avoiding another holocaust' or 'never again' will be derisive fodder in a reaction the likes of which Israel could never have imagined,

[GZLives]

"Despised" ?
"Reviled" ?

Did you ever read the Guardian CIF (Comment is Free)

Most of the Left already feels this way.
I'd rather be reviled and despised then DEAD !!!

[FogBelter]

If Israel were to use nuclear weapons on her regional neighbors, I would be for the United States abandoning all support of the Jewish State and leaving it to its fate. Israel was created in the wake of the German atrocities of WWII against the Jewish people ... my great-grandfather was the only member of his family to come to the US when he was 16 prior to WWII, his entire family, parents, 14 siblings and an unknowable number of cousins, nieces and nephews were lost to the Holocaust ... but I feel the opportunism displayed by Israeli hawks desecrates the memories of those lost ...

I understand there are some Israelis who view the muslims of their region in the same way American Colonists viewed the Native Americans ... but professor Morris had better remember there is nothing moral in extirpation ... the Final Solution proved that.

[janziff]

The change in Benny Morris is perhaps the most egregious part of this discussion. It was Benny Morris who, in 1988, published the iconoclastic "The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem, 1947-1949" - the first in-depth analysis of the tactics, procedures and outcome of the Haganah's War of Independence against the indigenous Palestinian society.

It was also an historically revolutionary book, because for the first time, Israeli documents showed clearly that Israel was complicit in the expulsion of over 700,000 Palestinians before independence was declared in May 1948. It also blew apart the "land without a people for a people without a land" mantra of the early Zionist movement which enjoyed a resurgence in the years between the Six Day War of 1967 and the invasion of Lebanon in 1982, was so much hogwash.

Benny Morris was considered to be one of the new breed of Israeli historians, one who looked at the facts and reported them as they were - and not the pablum and cover up that revisionist historians would have had Jewish communities worldwide believe.

For Morris to champion an act that can only be described as imprudent at best and exceedingly stupid and suicidal on the part of Israel at worst, is perhaps the most distressing aspect of all.

[GZLives]

And you know what happened janziff - Morris found new evidence that contradicted what he had written. He left out the parts about how many Arab villages housed and fed solider from invading Arab armies like the Iraqis who invaded. These Arabs were justifiably chased out when their villages were over run by Israeli forces and rightfully so. The Palestinians living there were just as much fighters and their brethren.

Whats truly funny is all those hailing Morris as champion and hero are the same ones now condemning him and not because he's any less informed - in fact he's more informed.
But those from the far left and some on the left have an agenda that goes beyond facts.
"By whatever means necessary" I think would be appropriate here. If they need to lie and peddlie the lies, they will carry out their mission ... pathetic

[batguano]

Well, this fits right in with what Israeli policy and actions over the past 50 years. An aggressive, racist & belligerent state with expansionist intent, driven by intolerance, greed & myth. If Israel makes peace, their quest for a "greater Israel" & to gobble-up more water resources would be ended. Peace would end the occupation & colonization.....read theft......of West bank territory in violation of international law. This long-planned attack on Iran is in keeping with Israeli goals. After intentionally targeting Lebanon's civilians why would Israel balk at killing a few hundred thousand or a million Iranians?
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article1290331.ece
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060821fa_fact

Destabilization & conflict is the bread & butter of the Israeli right & "religious" fundamentalists. They got their war with Iraq via their agents in America, Neocons, AIPAC, et al, & their war against Lebanon's civilian population/works, using cluster bombs, depleted uranium, & phosphorus weapons. After using banned weapons on Lebanon's civilians, why would they not use nuc's on Irans? Only with continued conflict can Israel keep on with their expansion.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=ROK20061106&articleId=3748
http://www.brusselstribunal.org/MeyerLebanon2.htm

History tells of 50 years of Israeli expansion and war, much against civilians. Lets not forget their attack on the USS Liberty. The actions of a terrorist state using war & mass killings to further their agenda. Why should we expect anything different now?
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/ussliberty.html

[PADDYWHACK]

General Buck Turgidson is alive and well,ably assisted by Col.Batguano.The whole idea is batguano,but we're dealing with diseased minds here.

[Steeevyo]

Get over it. Morris is right.
Iran is a country run by criminal thugs.
Israel has all right to be worried and to take all necessary measures
to avoid Holocaust Pt.2.

[valkyrie607]

"Iran is a country run by criminal thugs."

So? The USA also has criminal thugs in charge. They're responsible for the deaths of thousands of Iraqi civilians. Should the American people be held accountable for their government's crimes? Should somebody authorize airstrikes on Los Alamos?

[nk007]

steeevyo:

Amazing ethics. Israel should commit "Holocaust" of Iranians in order to avoid "Holocaust."

[jeanrenoir]

The neocons and Likud are now dead meat in the Republican Party itself, as Bush's diplomatic 180 with Iran has just demonstrated. The Republican Party regulars now correctly, and obviously, hold the neocons and their idiot proxy war for Israel in Iraq 100% responsible for everything that has made the Republican Party itself dead meat with the voters: 1. the most widely unpopular war in American history; 2. an extra trillion dollars of deficits to pay for the war while cutting taxes for the rich; 3. the trashing of the dollar by this recklessly exploding debt; and 4. the big kahuna which even Archie Bunker gets: tripled gas prices under Bush which are mostly the simple result of Bush's wiping out the value of the dollar. Does anyone doubt that the Republican Party has gone to Bush and the neocons and put a gun to their temple, warning that Republicans will not take it lying down if either Israel or its puppet Bush is stupid enough to bomb Iran and triple gas prices AGAIN, this time overnight, and in plain view. The Republicans GET it. They know that if the American public has to pay $12 a gallon entirely because of bombing Iraq, the public will be more violently outraged than at any time in American history, with the possible exception of Pearl Harbor. That rage would be at least as dangerous for the future of Israel as a nuclear Iran, which would be prevented by Obama anyway.

[Stirner]

I'm a registered Republican, and I voted for Bush (sorry). I'm a good example of a once-loyal Republican who was simply driven out of the Party by the neocons. I'm fed up with AIPAC determining our foreign policy -- now, another war, "to avoid Holocaust Pt.2". The Zionist Guilt-merchants such as Podhoretz (who talks up W.W.4), Kristol, and Morris should just shut up and stop trying to drag us into another miserable, endless and bloody war in that religious cesspool in and about Israel.