I cannot brag to be a passionate reader of the Jerusalem Post newspaper; after all, it's a preference of Dick Cheney and is therefore a right-wing newspaper - which it factually is. In fact, one can know that from a very simple and casual observation: there is a section (tab) titled "Iranian Threat", at the top of the web site's homepage. However, I do frequently read it for the purposes of seeing how different newspapers dispense their news as well as to get exposed to an entire spectrum of opinion.
And in that section one can usually find latest news, developments as well as columns, editorials and opinions about this topic. And though it may be a right-of-center news source, it does present a relatively diverse discourse on the topic, which is not frequently seen in the American media, especially in conservative newspapers.
For example, reading it today I encountered two very thoughtful opinion pieces on Iran: one is by Sheldon Schorer, titled, "What to do about Iran", and second is by Elliot Jager, titled, "Power & Politics: How not to understand Ahmadinejad".
What is interesting about both pieces is that neither tries to portray Iran in a positive light. Both admit that Iran is dangerous if it acquires nuclear weapons, a notion that is common among most people in the world and one that is shared by even Noam Chomsky (although there is disagreement over exactly what danger or threat Iran would present). However, they abstain from the "mushroom cloud" and other doomsday scenarios argument.
Mr. Schorer centers his opinion piece by asking the appropriate question of diplomacy: "What is the model that could work with Iran?" - referring to the model of preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. He begins to answer this question by first pointing out that military option "is an extreme measure, and one that would not be employed as a preemptive measure against an ambiguous threat". Interestingly, he calls it an "ambiguous" threat, implying that even Israel cannot determine with certainty that Iran presents a clear and direct danger/threat to it. In his view, military preemption should only be exercised when it is "absolutely necessary as a response to overt, and not merely threatened, aggression", a position consistent with Israeli and American doves and certainly one favored by Barack Obama.
The second option, one of limited military strike, wouldn't work, according to Mr. Schorer, because it "may not end the Iranian threat, and may even exacerbate the situation", a notion of almost universal agreement within the expert community. One's basic awareness of internal Iranian politics and history would immediately suggest that Iranians would almost certainly coalesce around their leaders (no matter who is in power) to thwart the invaders, as happened during the 1980-1988 war with Iraq. That wouldn't only strengthen its current regime, but would also "provoke the extremists in Iran and elsewhere in the Islamic world, to rededicate their efforts to attack the United States at home and abroad", in the words of Mr. Schorer.
So what does Mr. Schorer prescribe as the model? A Cold War model. He admits that it's a "comprehensive and difficult approach", because it "views negotiations as a vehicle for restructuring global associations and not just as a conference to discuss surrender terms". In other words, when Barack Obama says that he would meet with Iranian leaders without pre-conditions, it doesn't mean he would actually deal with Iranians on bilateral basis and cave in to their demands. He says, "this means organizing the 'good guys' in the world into an alliance that will isolate Iran, thereby demonstrating to Iran that it has more to gain by joining the world community than by opposing it." And this IS the approach favored by Barack Obama as well as senior Democrats and Republicans like Joe Biden, Dick Lugar and Chuck Hagel - chairman, ranking member and member of the the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee, respectively. And by the way, Barack Obama is also a member of this committee and is the chairman of its subcommittee. And in over 2 decades in the Senate, John McCain has not served on Foreign Relations Committee once!
Elliot Jager's opinion piece is written with a different flavor and direction in mind. He focuses on Iran, Ahmadinejad and the rest of the Iranian leadership in their relation to Israel, particularly its rhetoric and propaganda against the Jewish state. Mr. Jager recounts the events of the Holocaust and the systemic, brutal and harsh reality that Adolf Hitler created for the Jewish diaspora during Germany's extermination years. He then compares Hitler to Ahmadinejad and 1940's Germany to today's Iran. His conclusions may be startling for the right-wingers, but they happen to represent the mainstream of scholarship within the expert community.
In his comparison, Mr. Jager remarks that, "Like Hitler, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is not a lunatic. Unlike the fuehrer, his leadership is not undisputed; he is not worshiped by frenzied masses, and no one suggests he will be Iran's leader-for-life". Although the Iranian leadership occasionally engages into rhetorical propaganda by pronouncing to "wipe Israel off the map", Mr. Jager's assessment is sober about this. He says,
But we can only speculate about whether Iran's leaders are genuinely apocalyptic - and thus immune to standard nuclear deterrence. We can only speculate about whether their desire to destroy Israel is paramount, akin to Hitler's determination to destroy European Jewry at all costs.
To address the critics that are quick to connect Iranian statements (which by no means are universal within Iran either) with its potential actions, Mr. Jager replies,
In that case, I wonder why the Iranians haven't simply procured an off-the-shelf nuclear weapon from North Korea or Pakistan. And why have they not attacked Israel with other types of weapons of mass destruction - like chemical and bacteriological - already presumably at their disposal?
Furthermore, Mr. Jager implicitly addresses those commentators that constantly beat the drums of "appeasement" every time Obama and his supporters talk about negotiation with Iran. Mr. Jager points out that Hitler simply could be neither appeased nor stopped from his march onto the world stage. The case is not even remotely similar with Iran. He says,
The opposite is the case today. Hard-hitting sanctions offer a very real prospect of success. In fact, the mild sanctions now in place have already contributed to the regime's unpopularity; driven it to ration petrol (Iran's refining capacity is limited, so gasoline has to be imported); and resulted in a 26 percent inflation rate. It may be that the best - not to mention safest - way to bring the mullahs to their knees is via the economic and political isolation of Iran.
Perhaps our own American alarmists devoid of relevant knowledge of either historical background and/or current situation ought to spend 10 minutes online reading Israeli news sources, opinion and scholarship to allay their fears of another Holocaust.