David Rothkopf, CEO and editor-at-large of Foreign Policy magazine and website, touched off some controversy shrouded in intrigue with an October 8 article entitled, “A Truly Credible Military Threat to Iran.” He suggested the United States and Israel were collaborating on a plan for a surgical attack Iran’s nuclear-enrichment facilities.
The controversy lay in Rothkopf’s suggestion, based on “a source close to the discussions,” that the United States actually had crossed the threshold into working with Israel on a specific attack plan. As Rothkopf explained, “The strike might take only 'a couple of hours’ in the best case and only would involve a ‘day or two’ overall, the source said, and would be conducted by air, using primarily bombers and drone support. Advocates for this approach argue that not only is it likely to be more politically palatable in the United States but, were it to be successful—meaning knocking out enrichment facilities, setting the Iranian nuclear program back many years, and doing so without civilian casualties—it would have regionwide benefits.”
Those benefits included “saving Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, reanimating the peace process, securing the Gulf, sending an unequivocal message to Russia and China, and assuring American ascendancy in the region for a decade to come.”
That’s a lot of regionwide benefit for a couple of hours of bombing, particularly given that the cited benefits extend as far from the actual region as Russia and China. What’s remarkable about this fanciful flight of tough-guy talk is that it actually was taken seriously in Washington and Israel for a day or two, but then it fizzled as official denials ensued.
But where did it come from? Presumably, Rothkopf didn’t make it up. Did it perhaps come from Israeli ambassador Michael Oren, who was Rothkopf’s roommate at Columbia in the nineteen-seventies and remains on friendly terms with the Foreign Policy editor?
Philip Weiss thinks so. He’s a self-styled anti-Zionist who co-edits a blog, “Mondoweiss,” that covers the Middle East “chiefly from a progressive Jewish perspective.” Weiss writes that the Rothkopf article actually led to Oren’s deputy in the Israeli embassy, Baruch Bina, getting fired and shuffled off to a posting in Denmark. It seems (per Weiss) that Bina criticized Oren’s contribution to the article, whereupon Oren complained to Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu. Bina’s transfer was announced shortly thereafter.
It’s difficult to know what to make of Weiss’s claim of inside information on tensions and events inside the Israeli government. But, as for the article itself, it’s difficult to see how anyone could have taken it seriously, just as it is difficult to see how Rothkopf could have taken seriously whatever he was told by whoever his source was.
How could a two-hour raid transform America’s place in the world? Reanimate the peace process? Secure the Gulf (probably the most ridiculous concept in the entire piece)? And how could it be executed “without civilian casualties,” given that nuclear facilities all have plenty of civilian employees? And how could one small raid set the Iranian nuclear program back “many years”? Maybe a couple at most, but in the meantime the entire region would erupt in ominous ways obviously unforeseen by Rothkopf and his mystery source.
It would be interesting to know just who planted this farce and what was the motivation.
Comments
I love the snark Mr. Merry uses to shoot himself in the foot. "[Weiss is] a self-styled anti-Zionist." This is like saying that Romney is a "self-styled Capitalist" or Mother Teresa was a "self-styled do-gooder." I have no doubts that Phil Weiss is an anti-Zionist. I am too, and there are plenty of people who understand the term without quotes or snark.
@precaf:Why is it a snark rather than just an admittedly unnecessary but conventionally used kind of phrase that sneaks into all of our writings from time-to-time? And given that Merry clearly isn't hostile to Weiss, why would he be wanting to snark him at all? Moreover, here's a conventionally sourced piece by Weiss (anonymous yes, which is however still conventional), backed by evidence (Bina was transferred), claiming essentially that the CEO and chief editor of perhaps the most influential U.S. magazine dealing with foreign policy and that obviously *wants* to influence U.S. foreign policy collaborated with the ambassador of a foreign country, via a piece of fraudulent reporting no less, in an effort to manipulate U.S. foreign policy for the benefit of that foreign country.And ... what you find the most remarkable thing to comment on about a piece relating this story is its alleged use of a little snark ... that doesn't even seem a snark?Anyway, one perhaps interesting additional substantive thing to note about this Rothkopf business is that FP can hardly publish anything in its blog now by Rothkopf before it either zips all the comments that same provokes or, as in his most recent one, doesn't even take comments about same due to commentators just creaming the hell out of the guy for a perceived pro-Israel/ insufficiently pro-U.S. slant. Even before Weiss' reporting on Rothkopf's piece in question the commentators were just ripping the hell out of it (full disclosure: mine included), at which point FP just made all of 'em vanish and published no more.Admittedly, Rothkopf could have substantially if not totally absolved himself of any real "integrity" problem before by laying out some thinking bringing him to believe that Israeli interests overwhelmingly coincide with those of the U.S. He is after all entitled to his opinion. But, he never did that, and he's now implicated in essentially knowingly participating in a fraudulent scheme to aid a foreign power at the expense of the U.S.Rothkopf has a problem, and given the absence of even any attempted denial by him, is so far extravagantly deserving of it.