Isreal's Defense Chief OKs Israeli Deaths; US Defense Chief Accepts 'Unintended Consequences' from Attack on Iran
November 15, 2011
Ira Chernus / CommonDreams & Associated Press & Haaretz
Defense Secretary Leon Panetta says attack on Iran's uranium enrichment centers ought to be 'last resort', could have 'unintended consequences' and may only delay Iran's alleged nuclear weapons program by a few years. Meanwhile, Israel's Defense Minister Ehud Barak has warned the public that, if attacked in retaliation, they should expect to "stay in their homes." It might be "uncomfortable" and "no picnic" but he predicted that no more than "500" Israelis would be killed.
Israel's Defense Chief OK's Hundreds of Israeli Deaths
Ira Chernus / CommonDreams
(November 11, 2011) -- "If we take out the Iranian nuke facilities, sure, they'll strike back at us," Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta said yesterday. "But if every American stays in their home when the Iranian rockets start falling, well, it will be uncomfortable. It won't be a picnic. But we won't have 220,000 Americans killed. Not even 22,000. So let's stop the fear-mongering. We've got vital interests to protect."
No, of course Panetta didn't say that. It would be unimaginable. But Israel's Defense Minister Ehud Barak did say much the same thing in a radio interview just the other day.
"Not 500 dead" in Israel, Barak assured his people, which translates proportionally into 22,000 Americans. The words "stay in their homes," "uncomfortable," "no picnic," "fear-mongering," and "vital interests" were Barak's. And he clearly implied that a few hundred Israeli deaths would be perfectly acceptable.
Such a cavalier attitude might have sounded shocking in the US But in Israel it wasn't any big news. Haaretz, Israel's leading liberal newspaper, ran the story for a few hours buried far down on its website homepage. Yedioth Aharanoth, the nation's largest and very centrist paper, didn't put it on the homepage at all.
Nor, according to the reports, did the interviewer bother to ask Barak what "vital interest" would justify such massive death and suffering. The answer was taken for granted: Iran must never, ever have even one nuclear weapon. Barak assumes that Israelis are ready to pay the price he sketched out in exchange for crippling the Iranian nuke program.
No matter that Israel, the Middle East's only nuclear power, already has an arsenal measured in the hundreds. One Iranian nuke on Tel Aviv would trigger those hundreds falling on Iran. When the Israelis justify their anti-Iran hysteria by saying that even one Iranian nuke would trigger a regional nuclear arms race it's a coded way of saying: For every nuke you make we'll make many more, and we're ready to use them all; if you attack us you're committing national suicide.
It's an article of faith for most Israelis that Iranian leaders are perfectly ready -- some say eager -- to do just that. The commonly assumed (though rarely articulated) explanation: The Iranians, like all Jew-haters, are irrational. They'll pay any price to kill Jews.
Of course the real irrationality is the idea that the Iranians would commit suicide. If they are working on a nuke, it's not to be used but to be publicly brandished. Like North Korea, Pakistan, and India, Iran may want to join the nuclear club because it's the only way for a regional power to be taken seriously on the world stage. Since the early days of the cold war, nations have pursued nukes more for their symbolic value than any practical value they might have.
Israeli leaders surely understand this, even if many of their voters don't. If we could ask Barak what "vital interest" would justify such massive slaughter in Israel, and if he answered honestly, he'd say that there is no practical interest involved. It's all in the realm of symbolism.
An essential motive of Zionism from its beginning was a fierce desire to end the centuries of Jewish weakness, to show the world that Jews would no longer be pushed around, that they'd fight back and prove themselves tougher than their enemies. There was more to Zionism that that. But the "pride through strength" piece came to dominate the whole project. Hence the massive Israeli military machine with its nuclear arsenal.
But you can't prove that you're stronger than your enemies unless you've also got enemies -- or at least believe you've got enemies -- to fight against. So there has to be a myth of Israel's insecurity, fueled by an image of vicious anti-semites lurking somewhere out there, for Zionism to work. Since the 1979 Iranian revolution, Iran has gradually risen to the top of Israel oh-so-necessary enemies list. Iranophobia is rampant in Israel, as one Israeli scholar writes, because "Israel needs an existential threat."
Anyone who has grown up in Israel, or in the US Jewish community (as I did), and paid attention knows all this. Maybe that's one reason US Jews are so likely to support the Obama administration's moves toward Mideast peace.
But the US mass media still frame the story within the myth of Israel's insecurity. Barak's words get presented by our leading newspapers as serious, sober analysis, with no comment on their sheer absurdity and callous disregard for human life. His own admission (in that same interview) that Israel faces no threat to its existence is ignored.
So most Americans are left assuming, as they have for so long, that Israel is a brave tiny nation fighting for its life against anti-semitic fanatics bent on destroying it. This tale of Israel's insecurity, like any powerful myth, is immune to facts and reason.
A leading Israeli scholar now argues that most Americans readily accept the myth because it reflects America's cherished frontier myth: supposedly civilized white guys endlessly fighting off the crazed violent savages. That sense of shared mythos, he suggests, is the strongest basis for the long-standing "special relationship" between the US and Israel.
If so, it's not surprising that Republicans, who are most likely to embrace the frontier myth, are more likely than US Jews to support the hawkish Israeli government as well as the calls to attack Iran, whatever the costs.
As long as this mythic view dominates the discussion of Israel here in the US, our government will continue to block reasonable moves toward Mideast peace, which must include a Palestinian state with full membership in the U.N. And we'll continue to hear more talk about the US permitting an Israeli attack on Iran, which would bring death and destruction to the attacker as well as the victim without any tangible benefit for anyone.
US: Strike of Iran's Nuclear Facilities May Have 'Unintended Consequences'
The Associated Press and Haaretz
(November 10, 2011) -- US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said Thursday that military action against Iran's contentious nuclear program could have unintended consequences, and ought to be a 'last resort'.
Panetta said he agreed with earlier assessments that a strike would only set Iran's nuclear program back by three years at most, adding that military action could fail to deter Iran and also have repercussions for other countries in the region and for US forces based in the area.
The defense secretary's comments came following a new report by the International Atomic Energy Agency, which said for the first time that Iran is suspected of conducting secret experiments whose sole purpose is the development of nuclear arms.
Iran insists it is pursuing nuclear energy for peaceful purposes and has warned it would lash back if attacked.
Israel on Wednesday called on the world to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons, after the UN nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, said Tehran appeared to have worked on designing an atomic bomb and may still be conducting secret research.
Speculation about an attack on Iran was fuelled last week when Israel, widely assumed to have the Middle East's only nuclear arsenal, test-launched a long-range missile and by comments by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that Tehran's nuclear program posed a "direct and heavy" threat.
Also voicing his objection of possible military strike of Iran's nuclear facilities, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon supported earlier Thursday a diplomatic solution to the nuclear standoff with Tehran.
"He [Ban] reiterates his call for Iran's compliance with all relevant resolutions of the Security Council and the board of governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency," UN spokesman Martin Nesirky told reporters.
"The secretary-general reiterates his belief that a negotiated rather than a military solution is the only way to resolve this issue," he said.
Ban's comments came as both China and Russia have voiced their support of continued dialogue with Tehran over its contentious nuclear program, calling possible fresh sanctions on the Islamic Republic unproductive.
"We, as always, believe that dialogue and cooperation are the only effective approaches for properly resolving the Iran nuclear issue," Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Hong Lei said. "Imposing pressure and sanctions cannot fundamentally resolve the issue," he added.
Russian officials even went as far as stating earlier Thursday that Moscow was weighing whether to provide Iran with more nuclear reactors, in addition to the one in Bushehr, which recently went into operation.
Posted in accordance with Title 17, Section 107, US Code, for noncommercial, educational purposes.