Nice try but it won't work. The trouble with what Reuel Marc Gerecht is trying to do is that he has gotten too complicated trying to do it. He wrote the article: “How Washington Encourages Israel to Bomb Iran”, and you can already see in the title that the author uses reverse psychology to say that Israel is potent enough to bomb Iran and that Washington is too stupid to restrain it -- therefore Washington is forcing Israel to bomb Iran. This line of reasoning gets worse when you read the subtitle of the article which is this: “Israel knows sanctions aren't likely to work and is increasingly aware of the poor quality of U.S. intelligence.” Here Gerecht is asserting that Israel is a brilliant little thing that is outperforming America, a giant that is afflicted with poor intelligence. And in case you want to know, all these marvels and more were published in the March 26, 2012 edition of the Wall Street Journal.
When you read the article you get the feeling that the writer is trying to accomplish several things at the same time even though they are at odds with each other. He is trying to say to the Iranians that Israel can hit them and that it will do so whether or not the Americans agree. He is trying to say to the Americans that Israel knows better than them, therefore, they should shut up and just help Israel bomb Iran. And he is trying to say to the Israelis they should keep the pressure on stupid Washington to provide them with the means to bomb the hell out of Iran because President Obama has publicly committed himself to the security of Israel, a stance from which he cannot back off – or else.
But because you know that all this cannot be accomplished at once and at the same time, you conclude that the real reason behind the writing of this article is to scare the world, scare America and reassure Israel. Gerecht is not trying to accomplish all that by the direct approach this time around because the tactic has shown not to work in the past for reasons that are baffling him and baffling all those like him. Thus, he is using reverse psychology which, when you come right down to it, is a very Jewish thing to do.
The thing is that when you construct an argument, you create a concept which, in the mind of the reader, translates into a visible sculpture. Each reader may see a different sort of sculpture but all the readers will agree that content aside, the piece is either attractive or it is repulsive. Because Gerecht has tried to communicate different messages to several audiences at the same time, he created a sculpture that must look like a deformity to every reader that looks at it. In fact, it is neither fish nor fowl but an artificial construct that is made of parts from the two in addition to parts from a few other species. In short, it is a monster. However, the main goal of the writer being that when this episode of political maneuvering is dealt with and blown over, Israel must not be left in a position where it will look like an impotent eunuch. Instead, it should look like the potent warrior who will charge again and again -- going against every potential rival that will challenge him, and take him out. This is something that Israel should be able to do with relative ease and will do by the sword of Gideon and the stone of David.
Look how the author constructs the three legged animal he eventually rides to his destination. The first leg is this: “In recent speeches, interviews and private meetings, President Obama has been trying hard to dissuade Israel from bombing Iran's nuclear facilities.” The second leg is this: “Public statements define a president's diplomacy, and … Mr. Obama affirmed 'Israel's right to make its own decision … no Israeli government can tolerate a nuclear weapon in the hands of [Iran]'” The third leg is this: “...the president has forced a spotlight on two things: the efficacy of sanctions and the quality of American intelligence … The Israelis are sure to draw attention to both in the coming months.” You may think of them as being the leg of a horse, that of a giraffe and that of an elephant -- all three attached to a body which is itself put together like a monster that lacks a head to think with.
Now that the author has an animal to ride and he is ready to go, he dismisses the American Congress which is a surprising thing to see him do given that the so-called legislature has served as a private toilet for every Jew that had a dump to get rid of or a load of urine to leak out. Well, maybe nothing of the sort was pressing him this time. In any case, instead of the Congress, Gerecht concentrates his attention on the executive branch of the government for a good reason. It is that the chief executive is the President of the Republic and also the commander-in-chief of the armed forces where the writer's attention is focused at this time.
From this point in the article to the end of it, the bulk of what is left resembles two bookends sandwiching the tedious churning of several subjects. They look like the tossing together of half-baked ideas that the author has not organized in his mind well enough to present coherently. The first bookend is this: “Even the U.S. Air Force might have difficulty demolishing (with conventional explosives) the buried-beneath-a-mountain Fordow nuclear site.” Here, he acknowledges that Israel is impotent, and says that America may be impotent as well, but he hints that the latter may someday wish to use an atom bomb to destroy the Iranian site in question. In fact, this is more than a hint; it is his own wish and fantasy.
As to the other bookend -- which is the last paragraph in the article -- it reads like this: “The Israeli cabinet still hasn't had the debate about launching a strike … But that discussion is coming soon and Barack Obama who … doesn't seem like a man who would choose war … has most likely helped Messrs. Netanyahu and Barak make the case for military action.” Here he says that Israel is potent enough to bomb Iran, an opinion that contradicts the first bookend. We are thus faced with an incoherence that begs the question: How can someone go from one position to its opposite so quickly?
Well, he can do it by rambling his way as he walks from one position to the other. Look how he does this. First, he makes this incomprehensible suggestion: “In Israel, Mr. Netanyahu and Ehud Barak may have waited too long to raid this facility; steady progress there means that the Israelis must strike if they are serious.” Here, Gerecht who lives thousands of miles away in the comfort and safety of America, chides Netanyahu and Barak for having waited too long already to start a war. Second, he tells them that if they are serious, they should still get on with the job of bombing Iran despite the apparent futility in committing this act, and despite the danger that lurks behind it.
But what kind of callous people are they who talk like this? It used to be said that by showing the horrors of war, television will intensify the sentiment of rejection that people have for war. This may be true with some people but to others, it looks like the more blood they see, the more they salivate and the larger the appetite they grow for more of the same, for more horror. These things are more animal than they are human.
To justify the insane advice he is giving, the writer begins an argument in which he tosses everything that comes to mind into a narrative he calls “the sanctions-political-chaos-nuclear-paralysis scenario,” where the sanctions that have been imposed on Iran up to now are supposed to lead to political chaos and the eventual paralysis of the Iranian nuclear project. But he says that this will not work because “Iran made around $ 79 billion dollars last year from the sale of oil.” Also, being a modern authoritarian state, it has “considerable resilience and a high threshold of pain.” He goes on to say that many observers believe sanctions will help exacerbate divisions within the regime but he disputes this premise and he argues against it. In other words, he says that Iran has good reasons to feel safe and to continue with its nuclear program.
And he ends up dismissing the effectiveness of the sanctions with these words: “Sanctions … as a tool to stop nuclear weapons aren't particularly menacing. They may have become a means to stop the Israelis, not the Iranians, from achieving their desired ends.” He goes on to say “that the Israelis know the CIA has no sources inside the Iranian scientific establishment or Khameni's inner circle or the Revolutionary Guards' nuclear brigade.” and he warns that “Iran has improved its cybersecurity since Stuxnet.” Thus, in his opinion, all of that boils down to this: “...when the administration says it has 'no evidence' Mr. Khamenei has decided to build a nuclear weapon, this really means Washington has no solid information.”
In other words, he is saying that Iran cannot be completely defeated once and for all even by the full might of the American military. And it cannot be prevented from acquiring nuclear weapons in the long run if this is what it wants. Rather than seek an accommodation with it, Iran should therefore be bombed to delay a nuclear weapons program that may not be there. If this will cause the Iranians to start a program they did not have before, it should be bombed again and again in cycles of two or three years. And this is the age old Jewish dream as reflected in their bible; a book of fantasy about endless wars, gore and horror from cover to cover.
To wish that his dream be realized, Reuel Marc Gerecht concludes with the prediction that Benjamin Netanyahu and Ehud Barak will probably bomb Iran very soon. And his advice to the world is to get on with it and be scared because Israel is not a handicapped eunuch but a potent stud.
This man and those like him are very sick and dangerous to the human race. Let them not salivate anymore at the horror they unleash periodically on the world as they have done for several generations already.
There should be an end to Jewish incitement. Every one of us should stand up and say in one voice: Enough is enough.