Be Careful What You Wish For

You might accuse me of splitting hairs in specifying that Chas Freeman is "not so much anti-Israel as pro-Saudi", but there are good reasons for recalibrating the focus on Freeman.

If Freeman is still a Saudi shill, if anything that means he will bring a stronger anti-Shiite than anti-Israel bias to his post. That's because, while ideologically the Saudis would love to see the Jewish state destroyed, practically they are terrified by the Shiite risorgimento we've created by bungling Iraq. (To be sure, they hate the Shiites ideologically too.) The Saudis know Israel doesn't pose a threat to them. Iran is a different matter.

The most recent milestone on the road leading to an American denouement with Iran due to its nuclear ambitions was the 2007 National Intelligence Estimate. That document concluded that Iran had halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003. National Intelligence Estimates are summary approximations of the opinions of all the US intelligence agencies on a security issue. They are released by the Director of National Intelligence, who is currently Dennis Blair. The chair of the National Intelligence Council oversees the process. Dennis Blair has picked Chas Freeman to chair the NIC.

If Freeman is in thrall to the Saudis, then he might feel compelled to do one of two things with respect to Iran. Out of anti-Israel animus, he might be inclined to underestimate Iranian nuclear prospects in a Lindberghian gesture to prevent our going to war with Iran on behalf of Israel. In fact, in remarks to the 14th Annual US-Arab Policymakers Conference, Freeman snarked:

But because of the regional playing field, it's more likely that Freeman will be inclined to overestimate Iranian nuclear prospects, so as to leverage American power in favor of his Sunni paymasters.

This could contribute to a devastating outcome, one that again underscores the absurdity of the argument of anti-anti-Israel partisans that the Freeman pick spells an end to The Lobby's subordination of American interests.

It would also be brutally ironic for the liberals among these partisans who are clamoring in favor of Freeman. These same anti-warriors who found it so hard to believe Mahmoud Ahmadinejad meant it when he called for Israel to be wiped off the map -- or that he even said it at all -- are now agitating for the appointment of an intelligence chief who might oppose Iran more than the Jewish state.

Labels: ahmadinejad, chas freeman, illiberal liberals, iran, israel, matthew yglesias, stephen walt

---

---

The Anti-War Conscience

Manouchehr Mottaki, the foreign minister of Iran, has echoed his president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's call for Israel's destruction:


This latter point is key. When Ahmadinejad called for Israel to be wiped off the map at the World Without Zionism conference in Tehran, Foreign Minister Mottaki was one of the Iranian government officials who came forward claiming that Ahmadinejad didn't really mean what he said. This fueled both the notions that the Iranian president was merely speaking metaphorically, and that no matter what he meant, Ahmadinejad is just a "puppet" whose opinions will not translate into government policy. Mottaki's defense was interpreted as a demurral to hard-line sabre-rattling by saner elements in the Iranian government.

Now, if we work within the framework set by Ahmadinejad's apologists in 2005, Iran's war party appears to have enlarged, but we need not do to be alarmed. Mottaki's foreign ministry also has been busy reassuring Hamas that a Syrian détente with Israel will not lessen Iran's support for its genocidal enterprise.

When Ahmadinejad trumpeted his desire to see Israel destroyed, a clutch of liars arose to retail the disinformation that he was mistranslated. They were led by Juan Cole and largely comprised left-wing foes of Israel. Minimizing or falsifying his words, they alternately claimed that he was expressing simple anti-Zionism, that he was calling for mere regime change, and, most risibly, in the words of Cole himself, that Ahmadinejad's statement was "in fact probably a reference to some phrase in a medieval Persian poem."

Insofar as Mottaki's echo of Ahmadinejad is noticed at all -- so far almost no one is reporting it -- it will be answered by the same apologists, who will do anything, even extenuate plainly genocidal decrees against Jews, to prevent a war against Iran. This is the "anti-war" conscience.

Labels: ahmadinejad, illiberal liberals, iran, israel, juan cole, mottaki, new antisemitism

---

---

Another Letter to Glenn Greenwald

Glenn,

This is extraordinary. Do you seriously believe that Ahmadinejad's exhortation -- "The regime currently occupying Jerusalem must be wiped from the pages of time" -- means something substantially different from the common translation that "Israel should be wiped off the map"? You may believe that neither phrase indicates bellicose intent on the part of a Holocaust denier who has called for Middle Eastern Jewry be relocated to Europe, but you can hardly claim the map phrase is a "manipulative mis-translation [sic]" by "neoconservatives". Even the Bronner article you cite but apparently didn't read concludes the same thing:



Bronner does go on to wonder whether Ahmanidejad's words "amount to a call for war", and here you join a minority fringe -- Juan Cole, Jonathan Steele -- seeking to "[traduce] the meaning of ordinary words" to prevent, even by transparent mendacity, if necessary, our going to war with Iran. But it wasn't always this way. Back in June, you wrote:


So what's changed?

Your relentless calls for us to resist "Endless War on behalf of Israel" are rooted, at least, in the sensible proposition that we maintain a sober and proportionate view of our national security in relation to Israel's. Agreed. But your about-face into running cover for Ahmadinejad, a millenarian, Jew-hating crank, is appalling. It amounts to a meretricious display of unconcern for the security of Israeli Jews, in spite of your own Jewishness. You may not be quite the same journalistic force, but this is reminiscent of the New York Times' decision during World War II to back-page the stories it printed about the Final Solution, in order to combat the perception that it was a "Jewish" newspaper. The difference is the New York Times didn't plainly lie to accomplish this.

Please consider ceasing to smear those of us who are alarmed by genocidal anti-Semitism as "neoconservatives" and warmongers.

Labels: ahmadinejad, glenn greenwald, illiberal liberals, new antisemitism

---

---