Wednesday, April 05, 2006

US War Planners Should Listen to Israel Regarding Iran

The author of the blog "The Washington Note," a Beltway insider, has this on the diffident stance, he says, the Israeli security establishment is taking to the US strategy of pronounced escalation with Iran, "leaked," in the London Sunday Telegraph.

It's nice to see Hans Blix back in action. It's Colin Powell's birthday today. Perhaps he has an opinion on the state of Iran's nuclear program.

Note that the American Jewish Committee has taken out a full page ad in today's NYT, which sports "an overlay map implying that future Iranian nuclear missiles would be able to strike deep into China, not just anywhere in Europe and the Middle East."

2 comments:

John said...

Just read the blog you cited there, Noah. That's some interesting stuff. I wonder how the AJC people would respond to the criticism that this guy levels at them for running the Iran advertisements in the New York Times. I might try to raise it with them. I'm sure they thought hard about what they did, so I wouldn't just dismiss their rationale out of hand. Anyway, that blog you cited looks really good, we should put up a link to it.

Amos said...

Fair enough. I think the American negotiations with Iran on Iraq, soon to start, are going to be about a lot more than the Iraq issue. The Americans might be a bit mroe flexible than this guy is making them out to be - despite all their bungling (which is pathetic). The point is that the US has some channels with Iran and that they might be willing to come to an agreement.

I was a bit annoyed by a few things, for example: "I have witnessed far more worries about Iranian President Ahmadinejad's anti-Holocaust and anti-Israel rhetoric in the U.S. than I did in Tel Aviv or Jerusalem." Well, yah, Jews in the Diaspora are worried because this is the kind of stuff that makes Muslims in France, Canada, the US, and Britain go bonkers and attack Jews and Jewish institutions. Everything this guy says is poison, and it has real effects for people in their daily lives.

Also, this was from this Nelson report: "A hint of the sort of emotionalism the President is subject to may be seen in a full page ad in the N.Y. Times this morning (prominently paid for by The American Jewish Committee, oblivious to how it reinforces various heinous conspiracy theories) with an overlay map implying that future Iranian nuclear missiles would be able to strike deep into China, not just anywhere in Europe and the Middle East. . .and so, presumably, "proving" that an Iranian nuclear program must be stopped at all costs."

What does that mean exactly? Emotionalism? I am not sure emotion is inappropriate here. I find the second comment about the conspiracy theories offensive. On the one hand, he pays lip service to condemning these "heinous conspiracy theories," on the other, he says that the ad reinforces them. It's like accusing a wealthy Jewish businessman who throws a lavish party of being indifferent to stereotypes about Jews being rich. He can criticize the AJC for the claims that the ads make, but I don't see why Jews in particular should be prohibited from making certain statements or arguments. That is simply not a valid critique.