Intersting Opinion Piece Discusses Anti-War With Iran Writing From Unlikely Source

There is an opinion piece that I have read by MJ Rosenberg about some articles that The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg wrote.

He is generally one that always sides with Israel no matter what, but on the topic of attacking Iran he has changed his tune.
A quote of his:

...that advocates of an attack on Iran today would be exchanging a theoretical nightmare - an Iran with nukes - for an actual nightmare: A potentially out-of-control conventional war raging across the Middle East that could cost the lives of thousands Iranians, Israelis, Gulf Arabs and even American servicemen.

www.aljazeera.com...

This is quite the opposite of what he Goldberg has written in the past. Does a greater possibility of war in Iran now that another assassination of a nuclear scientist, seem suddenly not so great an idea?

Like the bravado of a bully that suddenly shrinks away when faced with a fight with "someone his own size"?

Another thing he said:

If I were a member of the Iranian regime (and I'm not), I would take this assassination program to mean that the West is entirely uninterested in any form of negotiation (not that I, the regime official, has ever been much interested in dialogue with the West) and that I should double-down and cross the nuclear threshold as fast as humanly possible. Once I do that, I'm North Korea, or Pakistan: An untouchable country.

On the topic of the recent assassination the opinion writer states:

The attack today certainly looks like an Israeli hit, especially when top Israelis themselves have warned that "unnatural" events were about to befall Iran. At this point, circumstantial evidence is all we can go on.
That, and the answer to the ancient Latin question: Cui bono? Who benefits? (Check out Commentary, the neocon website that is celebrating the murder.)
In theory, at least, the Netanyahu government benefits. A 32-year-old Iranian nuclear scientist is dead. The opportunities for dialogue or successful multilateral negotiations diminishes. And, if Iran responds in any way, US neocons (including Congress, which will recite its AIPAC talking points) will intensify calls for war.

www.aljazeera.com...

Just thought the issues in this OpEd and the two original articles were especially interesting in their views on Israels actions and and thinking since both writers are Jewish themselves.

I'm not trying to place one group against another with this, but maybe to continue the thoughts and bring them to your attention.

Thanks for reading.

reply to post by Chamberf=6


Dear Chamberf=6,

Thanks for writing, you've found some good stuff. But, as always, I'm a little confused.

I do understand that these articles point out the need to be aware of splits where there is often assumed to be unity. I believe Israelis cover the entire spectrum from calling for immediate war, to abandoning Israel and moving away. The US of course is similarly divided, as is the stew of Israel, NATO and the US called "The West."

Anyway, to my confusion.

Concerning theoretical versus actual nightmares, the author (I can't tell if it's Rosenberg or Goldberg) seems to be saying we can't go to war before Iran gets nukes, and we can't go to war after. I think he is confusing the issue by using the same word "nightmare" for both scenarios. Afghanistan and Hiroshima, the same?

His concern is an "out-of-control" war, but would it be? My understanding is that the Arab League has imposed sanctions on Iran and are nervous about its nuclear program. I would think the Arab states could largely be persuaded to stay out of things, especially if it was a surgical action aimed at Iran's nuclear facilities.

And how many nuclear weapons would Iran have to have before it became "untouchable?" I suspect some in Israel and "The West" would be willing to trade the possibility of one succesful launch (which might develop technical problems or be shot down) for the elimination of Iran as a regional power.

I'm also not sure that the assassination program signals the disinterest of "The West" in any form of negotiation. I see it as the exertion of more pressure on the Iranian nuclear program to force Iran to negotiations.

Again, this is a very interesting collection of pieces and deserves a lot more discussion than it seems to be getting. Thanks for putting it up.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by Chamberf=6


Great post! Actually, in my opinion, the only way an attack on Iran will happen is if it is initiated by the US. Israel could not hope to win a war against Iran without help nor would they even attempt it. Irans missles would devastate tiny Israel in a matter of days. Sure, Israel has the nuclear option but Iran has chemical and biological weapons AND the means to deliver them. Israel should be careful with their threats of war because Iran has a legitimate right to pre-emt an Israeli attack should they believe an Israeli attack is imminent. The spectre of world war looms considering the recent comments of the Chinese and Russians.

reply to post by gem_man


I agree a full out war initiated by Israel would, as one of the articles mentioned, be "nightmarish" for Israel and the Middle East.
Thus the covert attacks and assassinations.

With all else going on in other countries including the two you mentioned, another Middle East war seems insane even if possible or probable.

The whole point of this game is to provoke Iran into retaliation mode so that they end up making the first move. Thus giving TPTB all the ammo they need to justify a fullblown attack to mop the floor with them and anyone else who allies with them.

TPTB understand all too well the arrogance of the Iranians, and they're banking on this fact.

I firmly believe that Iran will make the first move, not Israel or the US or the UK. Why? Not because I believe Iran to be the "bad guy" (or badder than the rest per se), but because I believe that Iran is arrogant enough and therefore stupid enough to play right into the hands of TPTB.

But here's the catch: I believe the grand prize of this entire scheme is actually China, not the middle east.

Slowly but surely tap off China's important resources to eventually draw them into the war game. That is China's weak point... their dire need of neverending resources to support their populace, scientific, economic, and military growth ratios. And TPTB know this.

China is the country sitting in the crosshairs, and the middle east (and any other ally to China) is just collateral damage along the trail to get to the end game. China has become the one country that breaks the link in the chain to global domination, and thus must be taken out of the equation.

But first you have to weaken your opponent before you can do so. And by doing so, you've increased your odds of winning the battle that much easier.

Just my $.02

reply to post by CranialSponge

Slowly but surely tap off China's important resources to eventually draw them into the war game.

Nice thinking.

Very possible.