In his new article arguing (and clearly hoping) that President Obama might go for a military strike against Iran, Jeffrey Goldberg makes a familiar case:
An Iran with nuclear weapons may be unbearable for Israel. It would further empower Israel’s terrorist enemies, who would be able to commit atrocities under the protection of an atomic umbrella. It would mean the end of the peace process, as no Arab state in the shadow of a nuclear Iran would dare make a separate peace with Israel. And it isn’t too much to imagine that some of Iran’s more mystically minded leaders, mesmerized by visions of the apocalypse, would actually consider using a nuclear weapon on Israel — a country so small that a single detonation could cripple it permanently.
The Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, who once told me he believes that Iran is led by a “messianic, apocalyptic cult,” is correct to view Iran as a threat to his country’s existence.
Israel’s terrorist enemies have committed atrocities for years without the benefit of an atomic umbrella, and I haven’t seen anyone yet describe how, exactly, this would become significantly worse once that changes. And while I appreciate the humor in the idea that the road to peace now runs through Tehran, "then the Arab states would make even less peace with Israel" is among the least convincing arguments I’ve ever heard, for anything, period.
As for the claim that Iran is run by apocalyptic maniacs bent on suicide, I wrote about this in my piece "The Martyr State Myth" back in September. The short version is that, while an Iran with a nuclear weapon obviously presents serious challenges, there is little evidence to suggest that Iran’s leadership is bent on triggering the apocalypse.
It also seems to me that a good journalist, rather than simply "imagin[ing] that some of Iran’s more mystically minded leaders" might use a nuke on Israel, then citing the opinion of the Israeli prime minister in support, might actually want to report something like this out a bit. But for some reason Goldberg is happy to let this rest on conjecture.
May 17, 2011, 12:00pm – 1:15pm
From Afghanistan and Iraq to Pakistan, Somalia, and South Sudan, the U.S. Agency for International Development, or USAID, is engaged daily in trying to help some of the most troubled nations on the planet make a lasting transition to stability, open markets, and democracy. Few areas of the agency’s work are more challenging or more controversial.
Join us for remarks by, and a roundtable with, the deputy administrator of USAID, Ambassador