What Country Commits Suicide?
by: MJ Rosenberg on November 29th, 2011 | 7 Comments »
The drums of war with Iran will be beating increasingly loudly in the three months leading up to AIPAC’s policy conference early next March. The Republican candidates for president (with the exception of Texas Rep. Ron Paul) will try to outdo each other in professing devotion to Israel coupled with calls to inflict more “crippling sanctions” on Iran, while pledging to keep the war option “on the table.”
The White House will dispatch deputies throughout the country to assure Democratic donors that the president is as hawkish on Iran as any Republican and that the war option is on his table, too.
The AIPAC conference itself, with more than half of Congress, the president, and members of his cabinet in attendance, will be all about the Iranian threat. Speaker after speaker will claim that Iran is on the verge of possessing nuclear weapons that will be used to finish the work Hitler began. (See this typical AIPAC speech by House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA), which hits heavily on the Iran/Holocaust theme.)
As I noted in a column a few weeks ago, the Iran war claque is comprised almost entirely of neoconservatives and right-wing “pro-Israel” activists and opinion leaders (from AIPAC and its associated organizations), joined by politicians seeking campaign contributions.
For a politician, being an Iran hawk can be very lucrative, while favoring diplomacy is a sure ticket to AIPAC purgatory. (Every candidate for the House and Senate must fill out an AIPAC questionnaire on attitudes toward Iran and the Palestinians. Providing the “wrong” answers or not responding means trouble.)
Writing in Salon last week, Gary Kamiya, longtime executive editor of the publication, noted that the people promoting war with Iran are many of the same people who led the charge into Iraq.
Kamiya asks how it is that anyone would pay any attention at all to people who not only were wrong about Iraq but fixed the intelligence (e.g., former Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith) to get the bloody result they wanted. Of course, Kamiya knows the answer:
If American politics did not contain an enormous blind spot, no one would pay any attention to what these discredited ideologues have to say. The Iraq war they championed turned out to be one of the biggest foreign-policy disasters in U.S. history. Their ignorant and Islamophobic view of the Middle East is as breathtaking as their bland willingness to commit America to yet another ruinous war against a Muslim country, this time one four times larger than Iraq and with more than twice as many people. They have a demonstrated track record of complete failure.
Yet these incompetent militarists are still taken seriously. And the reason is simple: They purport to be supporters of Israel. In American politics, you can get away with even the most cracked war-mongering as long as you claim to be “pro-Israel.” And the ultimate get-out-of-jail-free card for anything having to do with Israel is the Holocaust.
Kamiya also addresses the awful irony in the pro-war claque’s use of fear of a second Holocaust as a rationalization for war. That is because there is no evidence whatsoever that Iran’s development of a nuclear arsenal, if it even chooses to develop one, would physically jeopardize Israel. A regional war sparked by an attack on Iran, on the other hand, almost certainly would.
No country in history has ever committed national suicide in order to destroy another. And Israel, with 200 nuclear weapons and air, sea and land launchers, could easily destroy Iran if it were attacked.
Listening to Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s rhetoric and watching the mysterious explosions that keep occurring near Iran’s nuclear sites, it has to be clear to the Iranian leadership that a nuclear attack on Israel would destroy Persian culture forever, not to mention the lives of tens of millions of innocent Iranian people. Against that is the absurd argument by the neocons that Iranians are innately suicidal, driven mad by their faith.
The Holocaust argument is absurd and offensive. Israel is here to stay and Iran knows it. Iran also knows, as we need to learn, that Israel’s ostensible fear of an Iranian nuclear attack is simply the understanding that a nuclear-armed Iran would limit Israel’s regional hegemony. At the moment, Israel has a free hand to do whatever it wants, whenever it wants to (like kill Iranian scientists with impunity or blow up suspected nuclear sites). But it would not be able to do all of these things, at least not as easily, if Iran had a nuclear arsenal.
As for a Holocaust, the main threat to Israel from Iran would come from the regional war that would inevitably follow any Israeli (or U.S.) attack on Iran. Every major Israeli city is within range of tens of thousands of Hezbollah’s missiles. How many innocent Israelis would die in a missile onslaught produced by Netanyahu and Barak’s obsession with maintaining Israeli hegemony? How many is it worth?
A war with Iran would end any possibility of Israel ever achieving peace with the Muslim world or any semblance of security. Forever. The dream of a secure Jewish homeland, a dream that took 1900 years to achieve, would be over.
It is hard to imagine that any Jew would wish that on Israel. But neocons are, to put it politely, an odd bunch, driven by hatred of Muslims rather than love for America, Israel, or anything else.
I’ll let Kamiya conclude this piece:
It is understandable that a people who suffered one of the most horrific genocides in human history would commemorate it, and vow never to allow it to happen again. But history is filled with ugly ironies, and sometimes the reaction to a trauma ensures that it keeps happening again.
A young Polish Jew named Ruth Grunkraut and her mother were shipped to Bergen-Belsen. Grunkraut’s mother died just six days before the Allies liberated the camp. Before she died, she told her daughter, “You must live. You must live for me.”
The annals of the Holocaust are filled with this same message: You must live.
An attack on Iran will be carried out in the name of the victims of the Holocaust. But that attack, rather than saving the Jewish state, will sound the death knell for it. Israel and its American supporters owe more to the millions of human beings whose last prayer, before their deaths, was that their children live.
In the name of the victims of the Holocaust and, even more, of their descendants, this war must be prevented.
Cross-posted from Political Correction



It’s not that I exactly disagree with M.J. Rosenberg’s overall view on this issue, but I think that he’s way too kind to Mr. Kamiya. I hope that readers will look at my more nuanced perspective: http://www.tikkun.org/tikkundaily/2011/11/29/iran-should-not-be-attacked-but-its-the-problem/.
Wonderful post however , I was wondering if you could write a litte more on this topic? I’d be very thankful if you could elaborate a little bit more. Many thanks!
“As for a Holocaust, the main threat to Israel from Iran would come from the regional war that would inevitably follow any Israeli (or U.S.) attack on Iran. Every major Israeli city is within range of tens of thousands of Hezbollah’s missiles. How many innocent Israelis would die in a missile onslaught produced by Netanyahu and Barak’s obsession with maintaining Israeli hegemony? How many is it worth?”
At least there is acknowledgement that Hezbollah is essentially a forward force for Iran. It would be far more enlightening for the author to realize tha Hezbollah is also the shield that Iran counts on as they develop their nuclear weapons. The author might also realize that the Arab world fears as nuclear iran as much as israel does
The author prefers to define Israel as the scourage of the Middle East
Don, you have to understand that to Rosenberg everything that happens in the area is Israels fault, EVEYTHING
It is worth noting that the same people who are so aggressive about the military option for Iran are also the strongest supporters of missile defense in Eastern Europe. They make the case that the deployments of a system which is of very uncertain technical capacity must be deployed to help protect Poland, Bulgaria etc from Iranian attack. They claim that this should not be perceived as a threat against Russia. Yet, Russia sees this as a shield coupled with an existing sword of western nuclear arsenals and somehow does not believe that the US would spend so much treasure on protecting Poland from the threat of Iran for some odd reason. The US continues to argue that Russia should not be concerned and yet we know that the deep cuts in nuclear arsenals needed to move toward a safer world cannot politically be obtained from Russia’s leaders while we deploy missile defense against Iran to protect Poland. Some of this madness does not pass the laugh test. If it were not so terrifyingly dangerous I would be laughing too. Jonathan Granoff
I shake with fear at the throght of a nuclear iran, but I also shake with fear at the thought of a military confrontation. A nuclear iran is a threat to Israel and much of the region. I support clandestine operations where a scientist disappears here and explosion occurs there or a good old virus is released. The main thing is that Iran cannot be ignored.
No attack on Iran would be justified. I would not fight it (based on a vow to my Dad). So I would not have others fight it for me. REMEMBER YOUR COUNTRY WILL LIE TO YOU. Remember Vietnam and how all of Asia would be communist, Remember Russia and those who insisted we should attack first. Remember- remembrance a part of the Jewish faith.