this essay highlights many things for me: wikileaks cables r NOT the pentagon papers – they do not reveal anything new. hertzberg, much like fareed zakaria (an unflattering comparison by any standards), finds the leaks reassuring as they simply showcase the apparent honesty of american foreign policy and the eloquence of american diplomats.
the biggest revelation, according to both writers, is how iran has been proven to be a threat, not just to israel and by extension the u.s., but also to arab states in the region. this is what wikileaks has accomplished – a judith miller via the internet, with oh, so much more credibility.
i’m deeply disappointed by hertzberg’s use of corporate-media-speak. he insists on calling the iranian govt “mullahs” while failing to call the american govt “war criminals” – that would put things in perspective, no? the iranian govt might place religion on an altar but don’t we do the same with corporate profit? they imprison women for adultery because it’s against their religion and we torture people for resisting our military occupations because it’s against ours.
i’m also tired of ahmadinejad’s corny description as holocaust denier and potential eraser of israel. how come we don’t use similar labels for netanyahu or pretty much every israeli politician of import? here r some ideas: ethnic cleanser of palestine, bulldozer of homes, incarcerator of children, supporter of apartheid, blockador and decimator of civilians, etc. so preposterous to judge one politician (ahmadinejad) on rhetoric while refusing to judge another (netanyahu and others) on action.
it’s also incredible to me that someone of hertzberg’s intelligence would consider an imaginary iranian bomb to be a threat to israel because it would embolden its enemies and shatter its mystique of invincibility. can’t he see the obvious disadvantages of the lopsided distribution of power in the middle east, which is further distorted by israel’s unilateral possession of nuclear arms. how does that encourage balance or any investment in diplomacy? i’m not advocating nuclear bombs for everyone but a change in thinking – nuclear disarmament on every side, not just countries that fall outside our sphere of influence and consequently off of our most popular client state list.
most disheartening of all r hertzberg’s reasons for not going to war again, on muslim soil: in view of time investment and poor chances of bloodlessness (for americans, hertzberg is quick to elaborate). he doesn’t care to mention the illegality of the wars or the massive horror and mayhem visited on muslim civilians.
he ends with some wisdom about internal change being a better option in iran. but he reminds the u.s. and israel (he makes it a point to see them as interchangeable) to keep up their “steady vigilance, strategic patience, and stomach for twilight uncertainty” in order to defeat iran’s evil intentions. he is particularly excited by the “biting” sanctions against iran in this regard. an equally strong argument can be made for non-western or muslim countries (on whose soil we like to play our war games) to use their vigilance, patience and stomach for uncertainty vis a vis what the united states/israel have in store for them. if the present wars and occupations r any guide, it’s not anything good i’m afraid.
Iran and the Bomb by Hendrik Hertzberg
The New Yorker, DECEMBER 13, 2010
WikiLeaks Shows the Skills of U.S. Diplomats By FAREED ZAKARIA
Time, Thursday, Dec. 02, 2010