Jeffrey Goldberg Still America's Preeminent Propagandist

Jeffrey Goldberg has just written a long article about the chances of Israel attacking Iran. (Apparently it's 50-50.) The piece demonstrates that Goldberg remains at the top of his profession—he's still America's greatest foreign policy propagandist.

Part of what makes Goldberg so good is his pose of thoughtfulness. He doesn't foam at the mouth, like someone like Frank Gaffney. He fits culturally into the liberal world, such as it is. And this allows the liberal world to be persuaded that all the options have been judiciously considered by our greatest minds and—darn it—we do have to obliterate Iraq/Iran/Islamabad/Iceland/Iapetus.

Another reason Goldberg is so good is his technique. He generally understands that the best propaganda doesn't use lies. That said, at a few points in the Iran article Goldberg does resort to straightforward fabrication.

For instance, the logical conclusion to draw from Goldberg's article is that the men who run Israel are psychotic. They're considering taking an action with obvious catastrophic consequences that also obviously wouldn't accomplish its goal. In fact, it would guarantee that Iran would stop at nothing to get nuclear weapons.

But the men who run Israel can't be psychotic. That's the wrong answer. So how can this circle be squared? Like this:

I AM NOT ENGAGING in a thought exercise, or a one-man war game, when I discuss the plausibility and potential consequences of an Israeli strike on Iran. Israel has twice before successfully attacked and destroyed an enemy’s nuclear program. In 1981, Israeli warplanes bombed the Iraqi reactor at Osirak, halting—forever, as it turned out—Saddam Hussein’s nuclear ambitions; and in 2007, Israeli planes destroyed a North Korean–built reactor in Syria. An attack on Iran, then, would be unprecedented only in scope and complexity.

You see? They've done it before! So they're perfectly rational to believe that they can do it again!

Except:

1. Iraq had no genuine nuclear weapons program before the 1981 Israeli attack on Osirak. That was the conclusion of the chairman of Harvard's physics department at the time (who inspected the site after the bombing). This was later confirmed by defecting Iraqi nuclear scientists Imad Khadduri and Khadir Hamza. And it was then doubly confirmed by the head of what became the Iraqi nuclear weapons program, Jafar Dhia Jafar. In fact, all the Iraqis say the Israeli bombing caused Iraq to seriously pursue nuclear weapons. Moreover, it was likely a big factor in Saudi Arabia's willingness to give Iraq $5 billion to do it.

2. Even if Iraq had had a big nuclear weapons program in 1981, the idea that the Israeli attack succeeded in "halting—forever, as it turned out—Saddam Hussein's nuclear ambitions" is COMPLETELY INSANE. Iraq had a gigantic nuclear weapons program from 1981 to 1991.

How do I know this? Well, I'm relying on an article written in 2002 by a talented reporter making the case that it was crucial for the U.S. to invade Iraq. His name was Jeffrey Goldberg:

Saddam Hussein never gave up his hope of turning Iraq into a nuclear power. After the Osirak attack, he rebuilt, redoubled his efforts, and dispersed his facilities.

Now, of course Iraq's nuclear weapons program was terminated by Operation Desert Storm and later UN inspections. But Goldberg was absolutely right in 2002 to say there was a lot going on after the 1981 Osirak bombing. So while it's always hard to tell whether these people are stupid or lying, in this particular case I think we can say for sure that Goldberg is lying.

P.S. Here's the first sentence of Goldberg's article: "It is possible that at some point in the next 12 months, the imposition of devastating economic sanctions on the Islamic Republic of Iran will persuade its leaders to cease their pursuit of nuclear weapons."

The official position of the U.S. intelligence community about this remains the 2007 National Intelligence Estimate. And it said Iran stopped pursuing nuclear weapons in 2003. Maybe it was wrong, or maybe something's changed since then. But it is the essence of Goldberg-itude to simply ignore this and assert the opposite as unquestionable fact.

P.P.S. As awful as Goldberg is, there's no reason to get mad at him personally.

—Jonathan Schwarz

Posted at August 11, 2010 11:30 PM

