Jeffrey Goldberg’s recent article about Israel and Iran’s search for a nuclear weapon is essential reading. Most importantly, it shows that:
- the Israeli government sees the program as an immediate, existential threat
- that it will strike next year if Obama has not disarmed Iran diplomatically
- that Israel is prepared to act even without US support
- that PM Netanyahu is strongly influenced by his father, an Iran hawk
- that some Arab states, notably Saudi Arabia, would go along with an attack
My view is that Israel would be crazy to attack Iran, 1) because there is a high likelihood that it won’t work, 2) at best, it will delay Iran rather than stop it indefinitely, 3) it will lead to nasty repercussions for Israel and its allies (including attacks by proxies in Lebanon and Iraq), 4) because, while vile, Iran’s anti-Semitism is not new; it has long been a routine part of political rhetoric (this is not to excuse it, but to put it in context), and 5) because, even if Iran did possess nuclear weapons, there is no certainty that it would use them; many countries have had nukes and not actually pulled a trigger.
The danger is that the Israelis will read too much into the “success” of bombing raids on Iraq (1981) and Syria (2007), and that they’ll take US support for granted. If Israel goes against US wishes, it risks the long-term health of its most important relationship – especially if violence escalates in Iraq, and US soldiers are affected. From Israel’s point of view, that is probably the best reason for not bombing.
As for the article itself, I tend to agree with Glenn Greenwald, of Salon.com, who says that it serves a hidden agenda, like the notorious “enabling” journalism published in the run-up to the Iraq War (see for example Judy Miller’s articles for the NYT). Greenwald says Goldberg is only posing as an objective journalist:
At its core, it’s only a slightly modified version of what he did with Iraq (I’m merely “reporting” on Saddam’s extensive relationship with Al Qaeda and his nuclear program/I’m merely “reporting” on the view of Israeli leaders that “a nuclear Iran poses the gravest threat since Hitler to the physical survival of the Jewish people”).
Though I wouldn’t put it in those terms – there is a lot that is interesting and reliable in the piece – there are several problems that should make us wary. One, Goldberg is a strong supporter of Israel, someone who has served in the Israel Defence Force. This does not disqualify him from writing about Israel – it qualifies him, in fact. But perhaps we ought to know about his allegiances. As Greenwald says, it’s hard to imagine a writer on another serious subject getting away with this sort of undeclared bias. If the writer had served in the Iranian forces, we probably would know about it.
Two, Goldberg’s I-report-you-decide position is disingenuous. This is not simply letting the facts fall where they may. It gives a one-sided view of a complicated issue, with few alternative opinions. As Robin Wright says, Goldberg doesn’t include the thinking of other important players, including China and Russia, who would both be against any attack. He also makes several assumptions, including that Iran’s program is as advanced as Israel claims.
You can argue that one article can only do so much – that it’s worth going deeply into one viewpoint and exploring it properly. But I also think there’s a deliberate attempt to present one perspective to the exclusion of others, and to present the threat at its gravest and most immediate. A more balanced account would have taken a step back and shown the whole thing in a more multi-faceted manner, reflecting its complexity. Instead, as Wright – an expert on Iran – says, Goldberg’s timetable is hasty, and it does not allow for the possibility that Iran will eventually negotiate in good faith.
It’s tricky accusing Goldberg of propaganda – I wouldn’t go that far. But it is worth asking whether the general reader is more likely after reading the article to support an Israeli attack? The answer is surely ‘yes’. By hearing so much of the Israeli side, we are conditioned to the arguments. If the threat really is so grave, and close at hand, then who could argue against an attack? I’m not against hearing a fully-reported account from one side. But after the disgraces in the run-up to Iraq, we should be wary of context-free reporting where allegiances are undeclared, and the threats are painted in apocalyptic, one-minute-to-midnight terms.
[ 0 comments ]
