Juan Cole: Thomas Friedman Has Officially Lost His Mind When It Comes to Israel and Iran

[marmar]

This post originally ran on Juan Cole’s Web page.

Being a liberal Zionist was always a tough thing to pull off, but it is becoming increasingly just impossible. The intrinsic contradiction between wanting social justice and equity at home and supporting a militaristic and Apartheid Israel abroad produces what psychologists call cognitive dissonance. It is hard to believe two opposite ideologies at the same time. And the effort seems to have driven the New York Times‘s Tom Friedman bonkers. Many otherwise sensible people who are strong supporters of Israel have concluded that Iran is so dire threat to it that extraordinary measures against Tehran are in order. Friedman seems to have abruptly joined this group (he used to be more measured on Iran). Now he seems to suggest that if the choice is between a US grand coalition against Daesh (ISIL or ISIS) that includes a de facto alliance with Iran, or a grand coalition against Iran that might include Daesh/ISIL, he actually favors the latter. Well, he sidesteps his support by wondering why no one takes this position; but what else could he mean?

His rationale is that the US has removed Iran’s enemies twice before, overthrowing the Taliban in Afghanistan and then Saddam Hussein in Iraq, and making Iran into a regional hegemon. If, he seems to say, the US crushes ISIL, it will be consolidating Iranian regional power. He doesn’t bring up Israel, but his commitment to it must be driving this bizarre calculation that leads him to want to arm the beheaders and ethnic cleansers and traffickers of young girls. (He doesn’t bring up that he was all for overthrowing Saddam Hussein in Iraq, which means he was part of the problem he is now describing).

Iran is not a strategic threat to the United States. It has a small underfunded regular military and the neighborhood volunteers of the Basij that are counted by Iranophobes in their armed forces are not trained soldiers. US intelligence has dropped Iran and Lebanon’s Hizbullah as terrorist threats this year, making the opposite calculation of Friedman, that if the choice is between letting ISIL run wild or de facto allying with Iran and its Lebanese ally, the latter is far preferable.

Digby takes Friedman and Marco Rubio and others who have engaged in this reasoning apart here

But Friedman is not a Rubio. What accounts for him being in this category of Daesh-supporters when he is not a conservative (in the American political sense of conservative)? It is his Zionism. For Israel, Daesh is just a manifestation of chaos and not threatening to Israel which has the best military in the Middle East. But for many Israelis and supporters of Israel, it is the big conventional rejectionist states and armies with their potential for nuclear weaponry that are the real danger. That is why Friedman supported Bush’s Iraq War, as well. Apparently, for this strain of Zionism, the Middle East has to be in flames and broken up by constant American military invasions and special ops covert actions and coups in order to keep Israel from having any peer militarily in the region. Daesh is just a set of gangs and aids in keeping Syria and Iraq in chaos, so from this point of view, it is a good thing and should be armed to cause more chaos. ................(more)

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/thomas_friedman_has_officially_lost_his_mind_israel_iran_20150321

[BillZBubb]

1. Friedman has always been a shill for Israel.

He always tailors his position to meet Israel's desired policy. He supported the Iraq invasion for that reason and his arguments for doing so were flat out pathetic.

He now supports "doing whatever is necessary" to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons. Friedman is trying to gin up support for a US military action against Iran, once again doing Israel's dirty work.

Friedman is a propagandist for Israeli interests, not a writer overly concerned with US interests.

[KG]

2. freidman LOL

[LittleBlue]

3. Friedman is a fool. He thinks of ISIS as just one player in the

game of regional power. That is wrong. Unlike Iran, they can't be reasoned with, and they can never negotiate. They engage in slavery and immolation. And unlike in Friedman's moronic fantasies, they attack their neighbors indiscriminately. They are no strategic value against Iran because they are a death cult bent on killing and destroying as much as possible before an imagined apocalypse. Isis can't be used as leverage against Iran any more than a grenade launcher can be used against only one person in a crowded room.

Friedman embarrasses himself by writing about strategy with his total lack of knowledge. The NYT discredited their own paper by publishing something that belongs on a Teabagger blog.

[cpwm17]

4. "Liberal Zionist" is certainly an oxymoron

Thomas Friedman tells millions of people to "suck on this." That should be on his gravestone: SUCK ON THIS.

[Comrade Grumpy]

6. Gawd, that is a fucking pathetic justification for the Iraq war. It doesn't even make sense.

[cpwm17]

8. His racism is unreal n/t

[Comrade Grumpy]

5. There is so much paranoid bullshit about Iran.

It threatens THE WHOLE WORLD!!!!!!!!!!!

[Jefferson23]

7. From Media Matters 2013: Where Are The Media's Iraq War Boosters 10 Years Later?

On the tenth anniversary of the American-led invasion of Iraq, Media Matters looks back at the work of some of the media's most prominent pro-war voices. Instead of facing consequences for backing the invasion based on information that turned out to be false and criticizing war opponents, many of these media figures continue to hold positions of influence and continue to provide foreign policy reporting and commentary.

Fred Barnes

Richard Cohen

Thomas Friedman

Paul Gigot / Wall Street Journal Editorial Page

Sean Hannity

Stephen Hayes

Fred Hiatt / Washington Post Editorial Page

Bill Keller

Charles Krauthammer

Bill Kristol

Judith Miller

Joe Scarborough



Position At The Time Of Iraq Invasion: Executive editor and co-founder of The Weekly Standard and Fox News contributor. [WeeklyStandard.com, accessed 3/19/13]

Barnes: Iraq Has WMD And A Delivery Vehicle "Called Al Qaeda." From a January 2003 appearance on Fox News:

in full:http://mediamatters.org/research/2013/03/19/where-are-the-medias-iraq-war-boosters-10-years/193117

Their ideas are as dumb and dangerous now as they were then.

[2banon]

9. Tom Freidman is as deranged as Bibi. It's pretty damn scary when these psychopaths are given

the level of "respect" and "credibility" within this nation's elite parlors, corridors of power and their newspapers.

[hifiguy]

10. Friedman is an idiot.

Always has been. Now he's sinking into Palinesque territory.

[2banon]

11. Thanks for posting Juan Cole, marmar!

[NuttyFluffers]

12. thomas friedman is a weathervane to the absolutely wrong answer, every time.

his books cannot shuffle fast enough to the dollar stores. how the fuck he gets published en masse when there's beautiful poetry from homeless people out there languishing on Street Sheets specials...