In an article yesterday, placed prominently in the center of the New York Times op-ed page, Bill Keller wrote that if he were faced with only two choices — (a) Iran with a bomb, or (b) bombing Iran — he would “swallow hard” and live with a nuclear Iran.
It is not clear from his op-ed why any swallowing would be involved on his part: in his view: (1) it is “hard to believe the aim of an Iranian nuclear program is the extermination of Israel;” (2) the worry about a regional nuclear arms race is “probably an exaggerated fear;” and (3) “history suggests that nuclear weapons make even aggressive countries more cautious.” It seems like an easy choice for him.
Nevertheless, Keller concludes that we should “focus all of our intelligence and energy” on a third approach: cutting a deal with Iran. It is amazing no one has thought of this idea before; perhaps we should give it a try for four years.
Keller believes that “of course, [a deal] won’t happen before November,” because Republicans would point out “the abandonment of Israel” in favor of a regime “that recently beat a democracy movement bloody” – and American voters would react negatively. But Keller hopes “a liberated Obama” would do it thereafter. Keller seems to have absorbed the message that this is Obama’s last election, and that he can be more flexible after he’s re-elected.
The tragedy of the current situation is that, because the U.S. will not set a deadline or a redline, a U.S. ally is faced with an existential decision that may have to be made sooner rather than later. Articles such as Keller’s may lead it to conclude that its own deadline is November.
Iran will never have to use a single nuclear weapon to accomplish its goal of destroying a Jewish sovereign and scattering Israeli Jews to the four corners of the planet. Under constant existential threat from Iran and subject to persistent rocket attacks from Gaza and Lebanon, those Israelis with intellectual and financial capital will flee the country in droves, leaving behind a hollow shell that will quickly succumb to the barbarians surrounding it. n nArmchair quarterbacks like Keller (and those at Haaretz who have desks waiting for them in the offices of the NYT) have the luxury of fantasizing about a nuclear Iran. Those in Jerusalem on the front lines — and up against the wall — do not.
What Keller really wants is to swallow Obama. n nHow much illogic and 'Trust me with your life because I say so' arrogance can one squeeze into a single paragraph? Try this bit of prose from Keller: n n "Despite the incendiary rhetoric, it is hard to believe the aim of an Iranian nuclear program is the extermination of Israel. The regime in Iran is brutal, mendacious and meddlesome, and given to spraying gobbets of Hitleresque bile at the Jewish state."
Just more evidence that the NYT, even though Keller is no longer Executive Editor, and the MSM are irredeemable. When faced with a choice of a nuclear-armed Iran, a previously acknowledged unacceptable threat to the peace of the Middle-East, and War, they choose Appeasement! n nWhat Are they going to do when the conflagration happens? Apologize?
Thought experiment: Wherever Keller uses the word "Iran", substitute "Nazi Germany". n nWhat Keller is really saying has been said before, most notably in the 1930's. There's even a word for it- appeasement.
Here is another thought experiment: n nBill Keller should move to Israel, and live and do his op-ed writing from there.
Keller bolts out in front in the Appeasement Sweepstakes,running for the honorary "Mullah of the Month" title previously held by Roger Cohen.
In a very strange way it reminds me HG Wells and his prediction that nuclear weapons were wonderful not because they were so terrible but because they would be used.