That should tell you much about his agenda and where his loyalty lies. He also spoon fed people the Iraq-Alqaeda narrative and numerous other lies that led us into the disaster that was Iraq.

I dont understand how rational, sensible people still take people like him seriously.

I think it is particularly intriguing how the current situation was foreseen by Walt and Mearsheimer in their book. I mean, read this part again:

"There is also some possibility, given the inflexible rhetoric of the presidential candidates, that his successor will do so, particularly if Iran gets closer to developing weapons and if hard-liners there continue to predominate"

Its practically a summary of the current situation; nota bene written years ago. Of course, writing "there is also some possibility" might be a somehow vacant statement, but given the fact that you can never be sure in IR I think it is still potent.

Admiral Mullens statements concerning US invasion plans (be they "just in case scenarios" or not) must make everyone who is not part of the denial of israeli influence on US foreign policy concerned about the future of this issue and the possibility of a war.

What makes a US attack less likey though is that without a sudden attack on the EU by Iran (odds arent realy high obviously) America will have difficulties finding partners for such an extreme endevour. Israel cant do it, USA hopefully wont want to....

Here's one more thing to consider about Jeffrey Goldberg: he is a former soldier in the Israeli Military. Although he was born and grew up in the United States, he left the country and immigrated to Israel, where he served in the Israel Defense Forces as a prison guard. He was actively involved in countering Palestinian actions during the First Intifada, and he undoubtedly built strong relationships with Israeli military officials and Israeli political leaders during those years of service.

In other words, Goldberg's remarks should be taken lightly. His entire article about the dangers posed by Iran should be taken lightly, because an attack on Iran would seem to serve Goldberg's own personal interests and boost his own standing in the eyes of hawks in the Israeli lobby. Cmon guys, taking cues on Goldberg about Iran is just as misguided as listening to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad talk about September 11. It's out of touch, far beyond reality, and perhaps a little self-serving.

I hope Obama doesn't "take the bait," because if he does, he will be remembered as a president who was far closer to his predecessor than anyone in this country would have predicted.

http://www.atlanticsentinel.com

Have you ever written anything on the middle east that wasn't just paraphrasing what other people have written?

Walt:

"Although Goldberg does not explicitly call for the United States to attack Iran and is careful to acknowledge the potential downsides of this option, the tone and thrust of the article is clearly intended to nudge the Obama administration toward an attack. He emphasizes that attacking Iran's nuclear facilities would be very difficult for Israel (some analysts think it is it is essentially impossible), but says it would be easy for the United States. He reminds us that Obama has repeatedly said that Iran with nuclear weapons would be "unacceptable," and suggests that both Israel and various Arab states have real doubts about Obama's toughness.

The implication is clear: "If you meant what you said, Mr. President, and you don't want people to think you're a wimp, you'd better get serious about military force."

The Leveretts:

"To be sure, Goldberg never explicitly writes that "the United States should bomb Iran." But he argues that, unless Israel is persuaded that Obama will order an attack, "there is a better than 50 percent chance that Israel will launch a strike by next July." And Goldberg's Israeli interlocutors readily acknowledge that the United States could mount a far more robust air campaign against Iranian nuclear targets than Israel could. A much more limited Israeli strike "may cause Iran to redouble its efforts-this time with a measure of international sympathy-to create a nuclear arsenal [and] cause chaos for America in the Middle East," he acknowledges. Goldberg believes the Obama administration understands that "perhaps the best way to obviate a military strike on Iran is to make the threat of a strike by the Americans seem real." But there is a clear implication that, if threat alone does not work, better for the United States to pull the trigger than Israel. "
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/08/11/the_weak_case_for_war_with_iran

Thank you, Professor Walt, for another wise and sensible statement on the very frightening sable-rattling from the ubiquitous Israel-firsters.

"The Israel Lobby" is a real eye-opener; however useful only for readers who earnestly want to know the awful truths about the Israeli machinations. I really do hope that eventually, your book will bring about the impact, and receive the credit which it deserves.

And I feel pretty well assured that President Obama will not let himself become fooled by the hotheaded Zionists; he is much too intelligent and clever for that.

That is that Iran will attempt to use a nuclear deterrent (not aggression perse) as cover for proxy aggression through conventional proxies and solidarity.

Its already doing that, which gives the fears substantiation.

As the United States does continually have existing committed relationships that are necessary to sustain, with states that are threatened by the proxy escalation from Iran, it is in the US interest to contain the Iranian threats.

The majority of US-Soviet confrontations were in the proxy arena. There was no use of nuclear weapons. There were many proxy and solidarity wars, each seeking to grow in influence and dominance.

Should Israel be dominant in the middle east? Should Turkey? Should Iran?

They each are working to be. And, each through a combination of alliance and diminishment of the stature of their contenders.

Should the US stay out of that jockeying? How can it? Should it take a side, or more nuanced mutual relationship?

And, if the US makes commitments to Israel, or Turkey (unlikely to Iran), and those countries are threatened by gross nuclear threat, or by incremental proxy, should the US fulfill those commitments, reinterpret them, or utterly ignore them?

Seemed to me Goldberg's article merely enforced (tried to or otherwise) the rhetoric of ensuring everyone knows that Israel "really" has military action on the cards. Added talk of lots of top brass and government types confirming it anonymously seemed to attempt gravity. Thus action seems believable and thus the threat of action is not taken as a bluff.

"In other words, a preemptive strike on Iran should be seen not as a remote or far-fetched possibility, but rather as something that is just "business-as-usual" in the Middle East strategic environment. If you talk about going to war often enough and for long enough, people get used to the idea and some will even begin to think if it is bound to happen sooner or later, than "'twere better to be done quickly." "

- Exactly. The role of a propagandist like Goldberg is to make the absurd and unreasonable seem commonplace and natural, it's just a question of time to "change hearts and minds". That's why his shameful article should be taken seriously - if we all let immoral and misinformed people hog the microphone, they will eventually seem rational and knowledgeable (which they're not). Journalists can shape reality for people who read them, and they are not exempt from having blood on their hands simply because they use words instead of guns.

It's too bad that there are apparently some toxic commenters on this blog, I wonder if it's a case of multiple identities (The Minds of Billy Milligan, anyone?)

Nice touch, borrowing the title from Lee Smith's childish screed a little while back...

Following are the opinion leaders who have been most conspicuous in agitating to ratchet up conflict with Iran, up to and including all-out war:

1. Abram Shulsky 2. Alan Kuperman 3. Ben Chouake 4. Benjamin Netanyahu 5. Caroline Glick 6. Charles Krauthammer 7. Dan Meridor 8. Daniel Pipes 9. David Brog 10. David Horowitz 11. David Makovsky 12. David Wurmser 13. Dennis Ross 14. Dick Morris 15. Elliott Abrams 16. Fred Hiatt 17. Frederick Kagan 18. Gary Bauer 19. Jeffrey Goldberg 20. Joel Mowbray 21. Joel Rosenberg 22. John Bolton 23. John Hagee 24. Jonathan Schanzer 25. Joseph Lieberman 26. Joshua Muravchik 27. Kevin Bergner 28. Liz Cheney 29. Max Boot 30. Michael Ledeen 31. Michael Makovsky 32. Michael Rubin 33. Mike Evans 34. Natan Sharansky 35. Norman Podhoretz 36. Pamela Geller 37. Randy Scheunemann 38. Reuel Marc Gerecht 39. Richard Holbrooke 40. Richard Perle 41. Rudy Giuliani 42. Shabtai Shavit 43. William Kristol 44. Yaron Brook

Do your impressions differ from mine? What names would you add to the list?

Isn't it true that most of these names are closely associated with the Israel lobby? Which lobby other than the Israel lobby has been spearheading the campaign to attack Iran?

And a few suggestions for data mining one's way into the reality of this situation:

1. sort ethnic groups by number of pro-Iran War statements by members
2. sort Fox News pundits by number of pro-Iran War statements
3. sort lobbies by number of pro-Iran War statements by members
4. sort mainstream media pundits by number of pro-Iran War statements
5. sort New York Times writers by number of pro-Iran War articles
6. sort opinion leaders worldwide by number of pro-Iran War statements
7. sort religious groups by number of pro-Iran War statements by members
8. sort US opinion leaders by number of pro-Iran War statements
9. sort Wall Street Journal writers by number of pro-Iran War articles
10. sort Washington Post writers by number of pro-Iran War articles

(statement=article, book, interview, radio appearance, speech, TV appearance)

How would you go about assembling the hard numbers regarding which lobbies and opinion leaders are working to drive the United States into a war with Iran?

Most of the above names, by the way, were key ringleaders in engineering the foreign policy disasters in Iraq and Afghanistan. Most of them are ideological zealots who couldn't care less about the American interest.

The ethnocentrism index: the number of times one mentions one's ethnic identity, issues, problems, conflicts or enemies.

Jeffrey Goldberg's obsessive-compulsive ethnocentrism is really quite remarkable -- compare the tone and quality of his posts with those of, say, Andrew Sullivan or Stephen Walt, who rarely mention their ethnic identity, issues, problems, conflicts or enemies. I can honestly say that I don't even know what is Walt's ethnic background, and haven't cared about the matter.

Why are a few of us so much more ethnocentric than the others, and especially ethnocentric in a xenophobic and hysterical way?

Does it ever occur to Jeffry Goldberg that there are many important problems facing Americans that have absolutely nothing to do with his narrow and narcissistic self-obsession?

An enlightening exercise: sort mainstream media pundits by the number of ethnocentric references in their punditry.

'Highlighting Israeli propaganda is antisemitic, especially when done by Jewish people" That sums is up.
What's Next:
Critizinzing Congress( hussein Obama, in fact ) allocating 2.77 Billion as military Aid to Israel=Holocaust denier.( not talking about the 3 billion Israel gets from our hard won money) (and please don't give me the usual bogus reply: the US gives foreign aid to Egypt b/c I find that just as appalling)
*Not being a Lobby-denier= holocaust denier.
what kinda logic is this? But you can dispense with logic, you've got a very well oiled propaganda machine!

"...If the United States does launch an attack, it will be doing so in part on Israel's behalf..."

Wrong it will be doing in on the Arab's behalf. Bush 2, the most pro-Israel President since LBJ, wouldn't green-light an Israeli attack.

A nuclear Iran poses a serious threat to regional stability. Your attempt to portay Iran and the USA as passive victim's to Israel's demands is becoming more and more pathetic.

No wonder you have to brand yourself. "A realist in an ideological age."

So tacky man.

"...and the lobby will bear significant responsibility for having pushed this dangerous policy"

Another Waltism. The magical Lobby that controls America and renders our leadership powerless!!!11

Look Walty, this might sell in Europe and the Arab world, but for the people who matter it means squat.

USA created Iran. We held Israel back numerous times. We can't blame everything on Israel, though I'm sure you'd like to.

By the way, are you the same Dave in DC (David Sternlight) who posts on Tablet Magazine?

Andrew Sullivan is *not* an ethnic nationalist, not to mention an obsessive-compulsive ethnic xenophobe like Jeffrey Goldberg and most of the neocons. He rarely mentions his Irish identity (and the enemies of "the Irish" never), and he is certainly not a strident and militant ethnic nationalist on behalf of Ireland and Irish ethnocentrism.

He does mention gay issues on a regular basis, but he is not agitating for trillion-dollar foreign wars on behalf of gay interests. Ethnic nationalists and xenophobes in the neoconservative movement spearheaded the disastrous wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and are now agitating to embroil Americans in an even more disastrous war with Iran, all on behalf of a foreign nation -- Israel -- and their narrow and selfish interests.

Andrew Sullivan for the most part writes on a wide range of important issues that concern *all* Americans and all human beings, across all ethnic and religious boundaries. Jeffrey Goldberg does not -- he is single-mindedly and narcissistically obsessed with his selfish ethnic interests and those of a foreign government.

Do you grasp the important distinctions here?

Strident ethnic nationalism is by definition a losing cause -- self-obsessed ethnic nationalists alienate everyone outside the cult and radically polarize the entire world against themselves. Why do you think it is that so many intelligent Jews, like Peter Beinart, are jumping ship? They finally figured out that aggressive and contentious ethnic nationalism of the Likud Zionist variety represents a grave threat to Judaism, to Jewish universalism and humanism, and to Jewish interests in general in the Diaspora.

Do you realize that you yourself rank extremely high on the ethnocentrism index? Nearly all of your comments are angry and embittered attacks on your ethnic enemies. How many friends have you won for your cause?

Which Arab names should be added to this list?

1. Abram Shulsky 2. Alan Kuperman 3. Ben Chouake 4. Benjamin Netanyahu 5. Caroline Glick 6. Charles Krauthammer 7. Dan Meridor 8. Daniel Pipes 9. David Brog 10. David Horowitz 11. David Makovsky 12. David Wurmser 13. Dennis Ross 14. Dick Morris 15. Elliott Abrams 16. Fred Hiatt 17. Frederick Kagan 18. Gary Bauer 19. Jeffrey Goldberg 20. Joel Mowbray 21. Joel Rosenberg 22. John Bolton 23. John Hagee 24. Jonathan Schanzer 25. Joseph Lieberman 26. Joshua Muravchik 27. Kevin Bergner 28. Liz Cheney 29. Max Boot 30. Michael Ledeen 31. Michael Makovsky 32. Michael Rubin 33. Mike Evans 34. Natan Sharansky 35. Norman Podhoretz 36. Pamela Geller 37. Randy Scheunemann 38. Reuel Marc Gerecht 39. Richard Holbrooke 40. Richard Perle 41. Rudy Giuliani 42. Shabtai Shavit 43. William Kristol 44. Yaron Brook

Neoconservatives keep claiming that Arab leaders are lobbying for a war against Iran, but they never mention any specific names.

Most of the above agitators are leading members of the Israel lobby.

You've got this backwards: it is YOUR obsession with ethnicity -- and especially with your own strident and narrow ethnic nationalism and xenophobia -- that is ugly, alienating and self-destructive. Most Americans are not bogged down in ethnic nationalist politics and in waging wars against their ethnic enemies. Attacking ethnic enemies is your entire mission, and the entire mission of Jeffrey Goldberg and most neoconservatives. You are forcing this ugly mess on Americans as a whole. You should cease and desist immediately before the situation deteriorates in ways that will not be to your advantage.

No one is attacking Jeffrey Goldberg because he is Jewish -- they are disgusted by him because he is a fanatical and monomaniacal ethnic nationalist and xenophobe who can only sing one simple tune. He doesn't represent "the Jews," the Jewish tradition, Judaism, Jewish universalism or Jewish humanism, and neither do you. Both of you represent a single thin strand of the Jewish tradition that has run completely off the rails. The best minds in the Jewish tradition increasingly want nothing to do with you -- they are jumping ship. Again, see Peter Beinart's important recent essay on this subject, which he is turning into a book.

Personality traits and behavioral patterns strongly associated with messianic ethnic nationalism:

1. deceitfulness
2. grandiosity and megalomania
3. lack of empathy or concern for cult outsiders
4. narcissistic self-obsession
5. paranoia and self-pity
6. personal attacks
7. racism and xenophobia
8. sociopathic manipulation
9. verbal abuse
10. violent aggression

"A shift in Arab views of Iran"

Shibley Telhami

The Los Angeles Times

August 14, 2010

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-telhami-arab-opinions-20100814,0,4569144.story

"Anger over the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and U.S. policy is tilting public opinion in favor of Tehran and against Washington."

BEGIN QUOTE

President Obama may have scored a diplomatic win by securing international support for biting sanctions against Iran, but Arab public opinion is moving in a different direction. Polling conducted last month by Zogby and the University of Maryland in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Morocco, Lebanon and the United Arab Emirates suggests that views in the region are shifting toward a positive perception of Iran's nuclear program.

These views present problems for Washington, which has counted on Arabs seeing Iran as a threat — maybe even a bigger one than Israel. So why is Arab public opinion toward Iran shifting?

According to our polling, a majority of Arabs do not believe Iran's claim that it is merely pursuing a peaceful nuclear program. But an overwhelming majority believe that Iran has the right to develop nuclear weapons and should not be pressured by the international community to curtail its program. Even more telling, a majority of those polled this year say that if Iran were to acquire nuclear weapons, the outcome would be positive for the Middle East. In 2009, only 29% of respondents viewed that as a positive. ...

Most Arabs have no love for Iran, and many see the country as a significant threat. But the Arab public does not see Iran as the biggest danger in the region. In an open question asking about the two countries that pose the biggest threats to their security, 88% of respondents identified Israel, 77% identified the United States, and only 10% identified Iran. The angrier the public is with Israel and the United States, the less they worry about Iran, viewing it first and foremost as "the enemy of my enemy." ...

All of this brings us to a crucial question: What explains the dramatic turn in Arab attitudes toward the Obama administration in the past year? It was not that Arabs didn't appreciate the effort the administration made to change American attitudes toward Muslims and Islam. Those polled identified that as the Obama administration's policy they liked most. But the reason for the shift cannot be missed: 61% of Arabs polled identified U.S. policy toward the Arab-Israeli conflict as the single issue in which they were most disappointed in Obama. ...

When American officials speak to the Arab public and highlight the threat of a nuclear Iran as the central problem facing the region, they cannot expect to get public sympathy or attention. The view in the region is not that confronting Iran is an essential prerequisite to Arab-Israeli peace. Rather, most Arabs believe that peace between Israelis and Palestinians must precede limiting Iran's influence.

END QUOTE