Like most New Yorkers I probably pay too much attention to the New York Times. -- Well, in my case, less than most, but still perhaps too much. This image shows the cover of today's New York Times magazine, which somebody, some years ago, once called the most reliably neocon publication in North America. Here's the pull-quote -- which occupies a whole large-type page of the fiimsy vulgar shallow mag, widely read on Long Island, Westchester county, and parts of New Jersey:
1. Does Israel have the ability to cause severe damage to Iran’s nuclear sites and bring about a major delay in the Iranian nuclear project? And can the military and the Israeli people withstand the inevitable counterattack?The piece is written by one Ronen Bergman, an Israeli propagandist -- erm, journalist. I mean literally an Israeli, a guy from Israel. Have we no mad-dog Zionists at home, that we must import them?2. Does Israel have overt or tacit support, particularly from America, for carrying out an attack?
3. Have all other possibilities for the containment of Iran’s nuclear threat been exhausted, bringing Israel to the point of last resort? If so, is this the last opportunity for an attack?
For the first time since the Iranian nuclear threat emerged in the mid-1990s, at least some of Israel’s most powerful leaders believe that the response to all of these questions is yes.
Most of the piece consists of bragging about Israel's assassination campaign against Iran's nuclear scientists, but the bottom line -- in the last graf -- is a quite explicit threat to the United States that if Uncle don't do something about Iran, Israel will.
Again: Are they just selling wolf tickets here? It's a thing they love to do, of course. I'm still sorta inclined to think so, but it shook me, I have to admit.
The bright side is that it shows the New York Times falling further and further into the abyss of intellectual and moral disgrace, just when you thought they had reached rock bottom. It's like the equivalent of one of those county fair hamburger-eating contests, with steaming bowls of fresh shit instead of the hamburgers.
Comments (22)
remedy for circulation sag
Posted by op | January 29, 2012 5:32 PM
Posted on January 29, 2012 17:32
Bibi wants his shot. He needs a war. Israeli is well nigh fucked, internally. The number of Israelis entered into the rolls of discontent is unseasonably high.
Does Obama allow it? Depends. As I wrote below, there's a window. Do they roll the dice? Dunno. But, the best avenue is "defense of Israel and the Hormuz shipping lanes."
(Yes, OP, I expect you to do a cut and paste, interspersed with silly epigrammatic nonsense and unclever insults...)
Posted by Jack Crow | January 29, 2012 5:41 PM
Posted on January 29, 2012 17:41
The meshugenehs are meshugeneh enough to do this. Bibi himself may not be meshugeneh, but the people he represents are.
Israel is ironically everything they and uncle accuse Iran of being: irrational nuclear armed zealots that want to wipe their enemies off the map.
I hope those wagering on hot air are right, and your arguments are persuasive. But the war drums will beat ceaselessly, and the US population has been softened for war with ("Bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb") I-ran since 1979.
Expect to hear these words ceaselessly from the meshugenehs and their think tank flacks: "existential threat."
Posted by Chomskyzinn | January 29, 2012 5:50 PM
Posted on January 29, 2012 17:50
So if war does break out, where should I flee? Any suggestions?
Posted by Troville | January 29, 2012 5:50 PM
Posted on January 29, 2012 17:50
Venezuela.
Posted by MJS | January 29, 2012 6:02 PM
Posted on January 29, 2012 18:02
jack i'll spare you any realism about bibi's options here
and give u a one word answer
wroooongah !
Posted by op | January 29, 2012 6:16 PM
Posted on January 29, 2012 18:16
you guys want us to view the zionics
like the neo cons want us to view the aya-totalers
having fun ??
if so great
trying to actually forecast ??
complete grubling peanut gallery stuff
"war drums will beat ceaselessly"
of course they will
but my dear chom-ziff
i'm surprised at you
falling for such blatant whoopee dupe
--- cue the waspish maiden aunt voice here--
-----------------------
you pundits need to review your record
are you right 90% of the time ?
i'll admit bush baby did jump
the sensible gap
and thru the early fall 02
--prior to the "vote "in the senate --
i would have bet against it
but now ...ohbummer ..rommney ...gingrich even ?
nope
we'll not have
two such loon jumps in less then fifteen ..twenty years
and iran it wouldn't be on any fore seeable account anyway
two loon jumps takes a very different sort of regime
then either of our corporate party can produce
Posted by op | January 29, 2012 6:28 PM
Posted on January 29, 2012 18:28
ya way off base
war warnings annoy me
like tales of the imperial dollar
falling from its perch
atop the international financial system
it shows completely amateur instincts
now ya i follow my own instincts on dollar moves
but i don't follow my own instincts
on war prospects
so why do you guys
or do you have expert insights here
that aren't disinfo tin foil ?
Posted by op | January 29, 2012 6:34 PM
Posted on January 29, 2012 18:34
thanx to the OCC
we have domestic prospects and concerns for once ..
lets keep our eye on the ball
Posted by op | January 29, 2012 6:36 PM
Posted on January 29, 2012 18:36
" As I wrote below"
indeed
and straight fom the burning bush no doubt
Posted by op | January 29, 2012 6:38 PM
Posted on January 29, 2012 18:38
gingrich even ?
What? Is that directed at the libs that you're lettin' down easy? Or do you buy into the Tinkgress.org-like 'Gangreench is clearly gonna do worse wars!' routine?
'Not even Gingrich.' Sorry, it's so funny, I had to repeat it.
If we're all so hopped up and wanna predict the ugly future, why not more seriously define the terms? I mean, are we talking 'WAR!' on the front page of Newsweek (are they still a mag)? A no-fly zone? Or maybe just a missile or two here and a tea or two there laced with poison?
So op's big bold prediction is what, like, no UN sanctioned action coupled with no US action without it?
The war started a long time ago. We're all just whistling through the graveyard until we know the real outcome.
Posted by davidly | January 29, 2012 6:45 PM
Posted on January 29, 2012 18:45
That's exactly the thing, davidly. The US has been actively at war with Iran since persuading Saddam to invade. Successive Admins have imposed sanctions, armed insurgents, assassinated citizens and funded the Israelis to conduct more of the same.
When I say "hot war" I mean as much - it goes live on the telly. Americans have already proven pliant in the face of some mediated jingoism, and if it's successfully cast as defense against Iranian aggression (and who doubts that it can be done with success, really?), then liberals will sign on (Libya...) and the neocon hawks will bitch about conduct and process while they applaud Obama for following their advice.
Posted by Jack Crow | January 29, 2012 6:59 PM
Posted on January 29, 2012 18:59
Sundaa-aayyy! SUNDAAYYYYY!
THE FINAL SHOWDOWN!
GOLDBERG CLASHES WITH THE IRON SHEIK IN A NO-REFEREE STEEL CAGE TEXAS DEATH MATCH!
FANS, BE THERE!!!!!
Sorry, had to do that. Couldn't resist.
Sorry about that.
(Jeez, I'm really missing Mean Gene Okerlund right about now.)
Posted by Mike Flugennock | January 29, 2012 8:46 PM
Posted on January 29, 2012 20:46
Owen, you're right to observe that nobody is in any position to predict anything. I would add, including a negative. Who would have thought that an assassination in Sarajevo would set off perhaps the greatest bloodletting (annualized, of course) that the world had ever seen? These people are capable of cleverly maneuvering themselves into positions where they lose control of events. I wonder whether you're not -- in your own perverse way, so familiar and so congenial -- committing the error of overestimating the enemy?
Posted by MJS | January 29, 2012 10:50 PM
Posted on January 29, 2012 22:50
What MJS said. My fear is that bluster can actually bring events to life, even if it all begins as bluster. I also firmly believe that between tha Arab Spring and *perceived* progress of I-ran's nuclear program (or propagandized progress of same), the meshugenehs are crapping themselves. And they're not rational actors to begin with (unless one considers things like slaughtering Gazans in response to a few bottle rockets rational).
I am less making a prediction that expressing an extremely uneasy gut feeling.
Yes, do not overestimate the foe.
Posted by Chomskyzinn | January 30, 2012 7:38 AM
Posted on January 30, 2012 07:38
the complex of actions called "containment "
includes proxy fights only
the principals never directly engage
Iran is now and has been since some time during
the second half of the carter admin
in containment
the definition of kold war
might be extracted from the us soviet waltz
' 46 to ' 91
this containment might
i suppose
turn to war at some point
unlike soviet containment
iran containment has wide margins
for rational escalation
given the serious uneven ness of power projection
and those margins if explored beyond some point
in turn might force an outcome
like a direct hot engagement
on a sustained and open scale
ie war
a war neither side now considers
a viable extention
of their present strategic policy
till today uncle's and apparently iran's
present strageic policy
in place since '79 has not changed
if either side changes policy the best sets of eyes on the other side will see markers
i guess i might suggest
crow has not provided plausible markers
that either side has made that change of strategy
-----------------
davidly:
surely u fudge here
more of the same cause we're already at war
is a casuistical evasion
containing nothing useful
crow of course jumps for the life ring it provides
with this all but acknowleged abdication:
"That's exactly the thing, davidly. The US has been actively at war with Iran since persuading Saddam to invade"
okay jacko if that was your meaning of hot war this next chapter you predict
will be too
and in the spirit of that
i declare to all readers here
i'm handsome and beautiful
'cause ain't
"all God's chillin' beautiful and handsome " ?
----------------
the great war i submit is not a parallel
it is however along with the great depression
one of the two magnificent demonstration
of marxist diamatic climaxing
alas
the advent of the second big war
and the subsequent emergence of an amerikan century
demonstrated
the global system's capacity for renewal
------------------------
it may just be an unhappy coincidence
the nuclear stalemate came alng to confirm
the containment strategy
but its clear containment came first
bw i conferred last nite with my personal foreign affairs guru
his take
" owen
ask any insider privately
any insider that is
who is not nor ever has been
either a zionist or anti zionist
and u get the clear response peeling at you
like a church bell
" war with iran ?...WAR?..are you pulling my dick here ? "
Posted by op | January 30, 2012 7:55 AM
Posted on January 30, 2012 07:55
the great war
thanx for bringing that up father S
such a climax is quietly rebuilding even as we sleep and eat and read escape blogs like this
but despite Clios very considerable powers of acceleration
that eventuality is decades off
judge for yourself
the constellation of great powers
circa 1913
versus the constellation of
not yet and once were great powers
of today ...all save one that is
a rival ?
the obvious candidate has some growing to complete
and at least one other bogey of merit needs to consolidate itself as well
and then ?
prolly several decades of clash and maneuver
and near miss
prior to
the main event
ah yes the great war
one of
and so far
the last of
Clio's big tragic scenes
of the bourgeois era
Posted by op | January 30, 2012 8:07 AM
Posted on January 30, 2012 08:07
"people are capable of cleverly maneuvering themselves into positions where they lose control of events. "
exactly true
but only in a context where that loss of control is possible
the great war was in the cards for two decades
b4 it occured
disbelief was all to human and all to foolish
the ignition point
of course is impossible to predict as to time or location
there are real near misses undoubtledly
however in our era
perhaps the so called cuban missile crisis
is
the locus classicus
for false notions of a near miss
but that's another story eh ??
for another escape into
the radically uncertain
sum over histories to come
Posted by op | January 30, 2012 8:23 AM
Posted on January 30, 2012 08:23
I read once about a malfunction onboard a Soviet sub indicating that the US had launched a nuclear war. The orders were to launch it's own nukes in that event, but the guy in charge of the sub refused. I believe he was later punished. I think there were other near misses too.
Posted by StO | February 1, 2012 7:07 AM
Posted on February 1, 2012 07:07
I meant "its," but the stupid phone auto-corrected.
Posted by StO | February 1, 2012 7:09 AM
Posted on February 1, 2012 07:09
I always thought the Cuban missile crisis was oversold -- all that brink-of-Armageddon stuff. Just couldn't see it, and still can't. So the US might have stopped some Sov ships. And the Sovs would have responded with nukes? Puh-leeze. They might have pulled some face-saving stunt in Europe -- to which we would have responded with nukes? Puh-leeze again.
Posted by MJS | February 1, 2012 10:24 PM
Posted on February 1, 2012 22:24
my own personal examination of the missile "crisis"
suggests seeveral gaps in the reords clarityvis a vis fidel's role
but the basic scenario as it now assembles itself
suggests 70%-80%
new frontier kennedy myth hype
Posted by op | February 2, 2012 8:07 AM
Posted on February 2, 2012 08:07