An historical note: a preemptive strike on the U.S.S.R. in the later forties would not have precipitated WWIII, as Kuperman avers. Soviet power would have been wiped out, pure and simple, and the Russian hold over Eastern Europe would have collapsed as completely as happened forty years later. A similar result was possible as late as the early 1960s — on this see the fascinating article by Galbraith, “Did the U.S. Miltary Plan a First Strike in 1963?” (I think I have the title right), published a few years ago in the Boston Review.

I am not saying that a preemptive strike would have been justified. Morally, how could one justify killing millions of Russians (“collateral damage” as we now say) in a preemptive attack? General Marshal, when the idea of a preemptive war was voiced in his presence, asked how one could justify the destruction of the Hermitage and its priceless art treasures. And he was right.

One would like to have some real inside information on the internal conflict in Iran, both people vs. regime and within the regime itself. I wonder how clear the situation is to people in the U.S. government; if anyone does know, they seem to be keeping it under wraps.

I’m sure it was a coincidence and not timed to coincide with the Kuperman op ed in the Times, but did everyone see Jimmy Carter’s reversal of opinion on Palestine? He now repudiates and apologizes for his equating of Israeli policy toward the Palestinians with apartheid. The man’s view couldn’t have been more clear; he even wrote a book on the subject, for which he was savagely criticized in pro-Israeli circles (the Israeli ambassador called Carter an anti-semite). And why did Jimmy boy pull a 180? Why, his son or grandson is running for a state senate seat in Georgia, and the district in question has a high percentage of Jewish voters. What a hypocrite! A return to his true self — the gutless wonder — that we suffered through when he was president. I can’t find a strong enough word for this; craven is too mild.

These developments may signal a trend . . . . The game seems to be turning the neocons’ way. Unless something big supervenes — the collapse of the theocracy in Iran, for example (not holding my breath on that), I see the possibility of bombs (Israeli, not American) on Iran looming large. This will probably set off all sorts of fires currently lying dormant in the region and around the world. An Israeli-Palestinian settlement will recede even further from the realm of possibility, setting up a grim reaping for the next generation of Israelis, and perhaps even for Diaspora Jews as well. Are Obama-Gates-Mullen capable of staving off the worst? I doubt it.
I believe we are now completely at the mercy of events.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/25/world/middleeast/25iran.html

Like you, I was shocked by the piece. How indeed does something like this happen, or perhaps we should ask: “Why?” The length of the piece, the author (who as you say has no real credentials on Iran) and the imprimatur of the Times, added together make it profoundly disturbing. Is the Times trying to have it both ways? Is it shifting to a hawkish stand? (Pretty bad timing if the latter, given that the regime in Iran has never been so unpopular with the mass of the people.) I was both shaken and outraged to read the thing.

Does anyone have an opinion on whether the Times is doing a good cop/bad cop thing at the behest of someone in government? The piece really came out of left field for me. Does anyone have a theory on what’s behind it?