After reading Benny Morris's article in the Op-Ed section of the New York Times of July 18th, 2008, I immediately had 2 questions: is this the same Benny Morris, a prominent Israeli historian and a scholar who produced groundbreaking work on Israeli-Arab conflicts and who is credited as being the most famous historian of the group of "New Historians", who revised Israeli history and uncovered a plethora of official government documents which portrayed early Israeli history in a more negative light? And if yes, then how could a scholar of such immense proportions give way to such ludicrous arguments as the ones he provided for the NY Times (and therefore for the world) in which he not only advocated attacking Iran, but argued that it's a better option than the ONLY other option left: nuking Iran?
It is well known that Benny Morris, who has been associated with being part of the "radical left" has switched his political views and has since been making commentary more consistent with the right-wing ideology. Nonetheless, aside from his support for ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians, the recent article in the NY Times went a level beyond even those atrocious positions and is simply speaking, disturbing.
When one looks at the article, it becomes clear from the outset that Benny Morris intended neither to produce new evidence nor rhetoric in support for bombing Iran. Let's examine closely some of those old, party-line arguments:
"Western intelligence agencies agree that Iran will reach the "point of no return" in acquiring the capacity to produce nuclear weapons in one to four years. Which leaves the world with only one option if it wishes to halt Iran’s march toward nuclear weaponry: the military option..."
Nowhere in this statement or anywhere else in the rest of the article does Benny Morris even hint of diplomatic means. He mentions nothing of the talks US has been having with Iran through back-channels, nor of the impending talks scheduled to take place at Geneva between Iranian nuclear negotiator and EU, the day after the article was published. Only one option exists for Morris - a military one.
After briefly suggesting that the White House is unlikely to launch another war in the Middle East against Iran, Morris says,
"Which leaves only Israel — the country threatened almost daily with destruction by Iran’s leaders."
What is this threat exactly? Iranian rhetoric? Propaganda? Political statements made by Iranian leaders? While this type of argument is expected from the Bush administration and high school students, it's not to be expected from a scholar who has written books and articles analyzing in detail the actual threat posed by Arab countries in 1967 and 1973. In fact, Benny Morris has suggested himself in the works of his, that neither Egypt, nor Syria, nor Jordan represented threats to Israel prior to 1967 war. Those countries actually amassed a large amount of troops at Israel's border and there were many military indicators that a war was about to break out. Those were also the days of limited (if any) US support.
Iran doesn't share borders with Israel, has neither military preparedness nor potential means to go to war with Israel and more importantly has no incentive or reason whatsoever for war against Israel. The only "war" Iran is capable of waging against Israel is via its proxy military groups in Hamas and Hezbollah, which is done for reasons having nothing to do with Iran's "desire" for Israel's destruction. Almost all serious foreign affairs experts agree that Iranian propaganda directed at Israel is produced for domestic political consumption in order to raise nationalistic spirit of Iranians and to get positive publicity from other Arab states in the region in order to break from its historic detachment, if not outright isolation in the region. And its support for militant groups like Hamas and Hezbollah is intended to gain leverage in diplomatic negotiations in the future, as Israel has done in its own history with the capture of the Golan Heights, Sinai, Gaza and West Bank. Furthermore, today US provides extraordinary and historically unprecedented military, economic and diplomatic support for Israel and Iran is well aware that should they fire a singular rocket even remotely close to Israeli borders, they would be wiped off the map by Israel and the US. This argument is not just a case of lacking a shred of evidence or any substance whatsoever, but is a case of clear lunacy directed at the largely unaware American audience. And Benny Morris knows it!
But Benny Morris leaves the most sensationalist and baseless argument for the end in which he argues that Iran cannot be militarily deterred like Soviet Union was during the Cold War by MAD (mutually assured destruction). He says,
Given the fundamentalist, self-sacrificial mindset of the mullahs who run Iran, Israel knows that deterrence may not work as well as it did with the comparatively rational men who ran the Kremlin and White House during the cold war. They are likely to use any bomb they build, both because of ideology
Israel knows? How does Israel know? Again no evidence is provided since we are supposed to just believe it based on the fact that it is Iran's "ideology". What exactly that ideology is, is not provided or explained by the author. Presumably ideology is death and therefore we are supposed to believe that the majority of the 70 million people in Iran wish for death - of Israel and themselves. This line of reasoning can only be directed at the fearful and unknowing American populace who watch Fox and CNN and are provided with nothing of substance to at least reduce the frequency with which this argument is provided by the mainstream media and its loyal commentators and so-called "analysts".
So should it be a surprise that someone of such scholarly credentials has written an article supported by nothing more than party-line, baseless arguments heard in the American mainstream media? To answer this question, it's crucial to note the timing of this piece.
The publication of this article came on the eve of a highly publicized and high level meeting at Geneva between a top American diplomat and an Iranian nuclear negotiator. US hasn't engaged Iran since 1979 (barring some low level, largely unpublicized meetings), the year of Islamic Revolution in Iran, which overthrew a US-installed dictator, the Shah. Realizing that for all practical purposes military option is off the table for the Bush administration (despite occasional public rhetoric to the contrary) coupled with the fact that its time is running out, Bush decided to put his diplomatic foot forward and engage Iran on the nuclear issue. While the pre-negotiation talks ended inconclusively, the fact that an American official was present at the meeting is an indication of a shift in rhetoric, if not policy. Iran on its part recognizes that neither Israel nor US have an appetite for another war, which will surely lead to further destabilization in the Middle East, complicating internal affairs in Iraq, peace process between Israel and Palestinians, normalization of relations with Syria and truce with Hamas. This gives Iran some room for minimal maneuvering during negotiations, which simply means they have some leeway in not making every possible concession that EU-US will demand. Hence, Benny Morris's article serves chiefly one purpose: sending a warning to Iran that should they not cooperate in not giving up their uranium enrichment and possible military nuclear ambitions, Israel is ready to attack despite the high costs it will incur to itself and the US.
Simply speaking, this is a case of psychological warfare between Iran and US/Israel as part of a game theory. Iran, like Israel and US, knows that war is the worst case scenario for both sides: Israel's peace process will be derailed, Iraqi chaos will worsen, hurting the US interests, and Iranian internal affairs will further hurt the economy and its population, which may lead to utter chaos and possible revolution against its clerical, theocratic regime. In order for either side to achieve the best case scenario for itself, concessions by the other side must be made, which is highly unlikely to happen. Which leaves the middle of the road scenario - both sides make concessions and diplomatic relations are established, leading to normalization of relations (which US already initiated through back-channels) and resolution of the nuclear issues.
So in summary, it is not surprising that Benny Morris, who is well aware of all the recent diplomatic developments (probably in a very high detail) would write such an acidic editorial for the NY Times. It was simply the latest and perhaps a conclusive rhetorical warning being sent to Iran before serious negotiations take place. Hence, it is neither unusual nor surprising. In fact, if anything, it's a sign of positive developments between the West and Iran. And while Benny Morris "predicted" Israeli strike in the next "4 to 7 months", the truth of the matter is its intention was to provide a public warning to Iran signaling that saber-rattling period is over.