Ron Radosh

March 23rd, 2009 12:44 pm

Roger Cohen’s Continuing Nonsense — Is he Making Barack Obama’s Iran Policy?

As for Iran’s foreign policy, it continues to pledge the extermination of Israel, and by all accounts, is nearer than ever to attaining the capability of building a nuclear weapon. The only difference is between the estimate of American and Israeli intelligence as to when this will be accomplished. Yet, if we take Cohen’s word, Iran is a regime motivated by “essential pragmatism” while Israel is a country that shows an increasing “bellicosity.” What would Cohen do if he was an Israeli, and listened endlessly to the promises of the mullahs to destroy their country? Does he not realize that both Hamas and Hezbollah are proxies of Iran, and that the wars Israel had to undertake were the cause of Iran’s very real bellicosity, not its pragmatism?

Indeed, Roger Cohen is way behind the moderate Arab states, which have continually given back channel communications to the United States that they hope something will be done to stop Iran. All he concentrates on is what he calls “American high-handedness.” As for those nations from Israel to Saudi Arabia that argue that Iran will not shift course, Cohen argues that Iran is in deep economic trouble (true) and wants both a stable Iraq and an Afghanistan without the Taliban. (also true) Therefore, the way out in his eyes is not to continue with sanctions and pressure, but rather, to break with Israel!

Any sensible policy maker would know there are both moral and strategic reasons for the United States to maintain its special relationship with Israel, the only complete democracy in the Middle East. They also know that rather than appease a nation like Iran when it is in economic trouble, they should increase sanctions and pressure- including the threat of military action if necessary- to show them reasons why they, and not us, need to change policy. As Ledeen noted, Obama smartly renewed existing financial sanctions a few days ago. (Evidently Obama didn’t read Roger Cohen closely enough.) Judging from Cohen’s column, what Obama should do to show he understands Khamenei’s pragmatism is to do what he asks- lift sanctions completely. After all, he tells us, “the mullahs are anything but mad.” Perhaps they aren’t. Doesn’t that suggest that one should pay some attention to their threats to Israel’s very existence? And yes, despite Cohen, the Hitler analogy holds. Wouldn’t the world have been better off had it taken Hitler’s words seriously before he acted on them? There were many, as we know, that argued at the time he was basically moderate and pragmatic, and that one should ignore his rhetoric. Sounds familiar, no?

The issue is not a phony US policy based on “Israel-can-do-no-wrong,” as Cohen thinks, but the need to respond to a regime run by religious fanatics that is posing a continued danger to both the Middle East and the world. Roger Cohen does not get it. Perhaps that is why The New York Times did not run his column in their print edition.

Addendum: Since writing the above, two columns from liberal bloggers have appeared praising Cohen’s column. One is by Richard Silverstein, who writes that Cohen shows “lucidity and pragmatism.” M.J.Rosenberg, writing in Josh Marshall’s popular Talking Points Memo website, calls Cohen a “fresh voice on these issues” and “fearless.” He also awards me great influence with The New York Times. Linking to my earlier blog that bore the headline “Fire Roger Cohen!” Rosenberg writes he guesses Cohen “will be fired.” Why? Because, he writes, my “neocon buddies usually get their man!”

I previously had explained that the headline was facetious. I believe in freedom of speech, and was only trying to draw attention to the argument I made in the column, that the paper and the liberal bloggers were acting according to a double standard. The Times fired William Kristol. I do not recall any objection on Rosenberg’s and other’s columns to the scores of people who publicly called for Kristol to be fired. Indeed, they cheered those readers on. And they expressed satisfaction when he was unceremoniously dumped. Of course, honoring the paper’s Upper West Side liberal base by getting rid of Kristol was an easy thing for them to do; they received only hosannas. But watch what happens if they follow by dumping Cohen. So, dear readers, we will see how much power I really have.

<- Prev Page 2 of 2

Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:

1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.

2. Stay on topic.

3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.

4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.

5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.

The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.

These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.

32 Comments

1. Faster, Please! » The I’s Had It:

[...] The sad thing is not you may not be exaggerating. There is indeed a very good chance that Barack Obama spends more time worrying about fantasy basketball picks than foreign policy—or economic matters. This is a very shallow individual. The fact that he earned a law degree from Harvard University only guaranteed that he could likely pass a state bar examination. It was foolish to believe that this necessarily means Obama is another John Adams. He is intellectually incurious. The man never gave a damn about thinking thoroughly about serious issues. He was into “networking” and guilt tripping gullible white liberals. I am convinced that you could give Obama three hours to read a half way substantial book—and he would fail miserably if compelled to discuss it afterwards. It would be way over his head. Mar 23, 2009 – 12:21 pm 13. Ron Radosh » Roger Cohen’s Continuing Nonsense— Is he Making Barack Obama’s …: [...]

Mar 23, 2009 - 1:22 pm 2. David Thomson:

“Cohen likes Obama’s letter and reads into it things that others are not so sure Obama means.”

My bets are on Roger Cohen. And what are the odds that he is wrong? Barack Obama is a non-violent radical socialist. The evidence is quite conclusive. Bill Ayers hosted Obama’s first political fund raising event! He attended a racist and anti-Semitic church for twenty years. Obama is something of a follower of Saul Alinsky. Need I say more? I am amazed on how many people still go to absurd lengths to avoid reality.

Mar 23, 2009 - 4:58 pm 3. David Thomson:

The first comment quotes me directly. I guess I should take that as a compliment. Thank you.

Mar 24, 2009 - 2:34 am 4. Pajamas Media » The NY Times’ Roger Cohen and His Continuing Iran Nonsense:

[...] Read the entire piece here. [...]

Mar 25, 2009 - 8:04 am 5. Pat J:

I read this today. Iran now wants to introduce the death penalty for bloggers who write about and promote illegal activities.

What a country.

Mar 25, 2009 - 8:28 am 6. deguello:

Roger Cohen is a post-modern reincarnation of Walter Duranty,who stubbornly whitewashed Stalin’s holocausts. With delusional clowns like this, it’s no wonder that the times continues to lose credibility,and readers.Speaking of delusional clowns,Obama must love Cohen.

Mar 25, 2009 - 10:20 am 7. lgkick:

Mr. Radosh, you wrote:

“Really, does Cohen actually believe we should show respect to a nation that suppresses homosexuals, practices hangings of dissenters and throws them into jails where they are tortured and have no rights?”

If you can respect the Saudis and Egyptians for doing much worse, then yes you can respect the mullas too. But you are also pragmatic in supporting the dictators around the world and supporting Israel even though they have killed and destroyed innocent lives in Gaza. So please step down from your moral high grounds, we know who you are and what you stand for. You stand for Israel and when defining what is right and what is wrong, that is your mind reference. You do not have the US interests in mind when you condemn Obama for his reasonable and peaceful gesture toward the mullahs. But let me break the news for you: you are also harming the existence of Israel and her ever being a normal country with normal people when you ask for more wars and more sanctions and more destruction.

Mar 25, 2009 - 11:48 am 8. Lefroy:

Don’t forget other examples of sophisticated Iranian jurisprudence like public stonings to death, and what about those great cellphone videos of public hangings of dumpy old ladies, using a truck and a telescoping crane!! The legs flying about under the sack!

Imagine if a US state reintroduced public hangings or stonings (!). Would Cohen be saying that the US should be treated with “respect”? What bizarre mental space do people like Cohen lurk in?

Mar 25, 2009 - 12:44 pm 9. iconoclast:

It really is simple. Cohen’s attraction to Iran is because both he, Obama, and the Ayatollahs have a common enemy: the USA.

Which also explains why radical “feminists” condemn the USA much more strongly than any Muslim regime, despite the outright misogyny, homophobia, and pedophilia common in these dark age cult worshippers. The USA is much more of an enemy to these “feminists” than Iran. Iran, when defying the USA and killing our soldiers, is helping them in the goal to recreate America into their own little brown-shirt image.

Nothing new about that. Maybe if conservatives and Republicans ever recognized that fact and treated all of these people as the implacable and irretrievable enemies they are, we might recover our nation and its heritage.

Mar 25, 2009 - 3:25 pm 10. Dave D:

Unfortunately the threat of military action just isn’t on the table. As it is we are too stretched with iraq and afghanistan, fighting a two-front war; we simply can’t back up any pressure we can put on it.

Also, russia and china for two can now actively challenge us and break the effect of sanctions.

Its kind of lose-lose.

Mar 25, 2009 - 3:26 pm 11. James:

Yeah right. As if you all care about the human rights conditions under the mullahs.

Whatever to justify throwing a couple of bombs over there, right?

Mar 25, 2009 - 4:20 pm 12. Lech:

“Whatever to justify throwing a couple of bombs over there, right?”

James, how about taking the Iranian regime seriously? Perhaps they really are sincere in their intention to develop nuclear weapons. Perhaps they are sincere in their desire to eliminate Israel (not irrational, in their belief system). If so, when they “throw a couple of bombs” over Israel (and perhaps even before), then Israel will be throwing a heck of a lot more bombs back.

Sure, maybe those who are greatly concerned about the current Iranian regime and do not believe a “detente” will work might be wrong. But those who take the opposite view, that we need not concern ourselves overmuch about Iran’s nuclear program, are running a grave risk: nuclear war in the Middle East. This would result in the destruction of Israel and Iran (at the very least; we’ll have to see just how much Israel would want to take down with it), and (by the way) the effect on oil supply and the world economy can be easily surmised.

The downsides of any action regarding Iran are obvious; let’s not ignore the incomparably worse downsides of a frankly Pollyannish view.

(But wait! Worst case: we get rid of all of those Jews along with many of them Muslims, we eliminate a major source of that evil poisonous oil, AND all those nuclear explosions will help counter global warming! Win win win win!)

Mar 25, 2009 - 8:57 pm 13. Jerry:

The real question to be answered here by those who support Cohen and those who oppose his “tolerance” is whether the United States of American will live comfortably with Iran when it is armed with nuclear weapons. The Iranian human rights issues, oh so real, are quite not a part of the President Obama’s calculations, given that he looks on quizzically as events unwind in Darfur, Afghanistan (Swat Valley), China (Tibet), etc.
/
It appears to me that President Obama has decided
/
1) to permit Iran to develop nuclear weapons,
/
2) to swallow nuclear weapons falling into the hands of radicals in Pakistan, if that is the way the cookie crumbles
/
3) to actively discourage Israel from taking action against Iran in spite of its threat to wipe Israel off the map
/
4) to throw human rights issues under the bus all over the world
/
5) to reduce military funding to the point where it would be difficult to mount a campaign anywhere in the world, no matter what the level of potential threat
/
This single-minded policy will have the effect of isolating America from its European counterparts, since they have been under the illusion that America would protect them from all adversaries. In addition, it would strengthen triuphalist Islam and bring America to the point of being unable to oppose its advances both in the continental United States and the rest of the world.
/
In addition, Russia and China will feel more threatened and less positively inclined to the United States, since they too will feel compelled to be more proactive against the encroachment of Islam and more adventuresome in seeking their own advantage.
/
Should the Chinese lose enough confidence in the United States, they will bring us to ruination simply by withdrawing their financial support. All they have to do is try to recoupe some of their investment capital, a not unnatural act in the business world. We will be dead in the water.
/
In summary, President Obama’s withdrawal from the world stage and from its conflicts will leave a deep vaccuum that will be filled willy-nilly by other “realists.” Worst of all, President Obama is completely and utterly aware of the “change” he is initiating and could not care less. It is an unassailable principle, not a calculated strategy, that he is implementing. “Change” is seen by him to be about “us” and not about “them” whoever “them” is. “Them” have their own revolution to take care of. “Them” is none of our concern as a matter of principle, no matter what level of threat “them” seems to present. Threat, according to President Obama, is only a matter of “our” perception. We need to deal with “our” perception of threat, not “their” threat. That is the new realism.

Mar 25, 2009 - 11:01 pm 14. Perry:

Cohen, Silverstein, Rosenberg. All Jews. The degree of their patheticness is beyond my semantic abilities to express.

They are treasonous to their history, treasonous to their religion, and treasonous to America.

USEFUL IDIOTS.

Mar 26, 2009 - 4:03 am 15. Stephen Rittenberg:

Left ideologues have always been drawn to ’strong man’ dictators. It’s a form of masochistic perversion. They long to be castrated and submit to a powerful tyrant. That’s why, despite the fact that regimes like Iran’s stand for everything the left claims to detest, the Roger Cohens (like Walter Duranty before him) are ready to defend them. It’s a form of deranged love, beyond the reach of reason.

Mar 26, 2009 - 4:58 am 16. Joe Bison:

Guys like Cohen feel that by showing respect
the other side will reciprocate. They never
think why should I show respect to someone
who does not merit it.

The other side sees this as wavering resolve
and an admission of wrongness on the part
of the US. How many on their side anywhere
believe the US or Israel have any valid
points?

They believe they are 100% right in
everything they do reinforced by the fact
that many on our side agree with them.
And make no mistake that although Cohen
is playing dhimmi to them he is still
on the other side and is a kaffir.

Mar 26, 2009 - 8:25 am 17. Still Bill:

#12 Perry: Well spoken! As a Christian I believe that we Christians in the United States support Israel more than Jews do, at least that’s the way it seems. Jews in this country seem to be more worried about any signs of Christianity during Christmas season, than they do about a nuclear armed Iran with lunatics in charge of that government. Stop feeling guilty Jews, you have nothing to feel guilty about. If black people in this country can’t make it in the greatest country in the world, that’s their problem, not yours.

Mar 26, 2009 - 8:50 am 18. deguello:

I have beeb saying it for a while on PJM and elsewhere: Scratch a liberal,find a Stalinist!The average progressive journalist, is a courtier,a pseudointellectual lickspittle for any Tyrant trying to receate the world through terror, in accordance with the lib’s fantasies.

Mar 26, 2009 - 10:05 am 19. Pat J:

Do I detect a little professional jealousy from this pasty white guy? I mean Cohen has a column in a national paper. Ron Radosh? Not so much.

Mar 26, 2009 - 5:51 pm 20. Still Bill:

#19 Pat J: The fact that the butt kisser Cohen has a column in a national rag only tells me one thing: He’s a leftist ass-kisser of the first order. Obama is the Manchurian candidate the communists have always been trying, and now have succeeded, in installing for the public school educated morons in the USA. Obama is a communist clown. Deal with it chump, dupe. I’m ready for the revolution if you know what I mean?

Mar 26, 2009 - 6:48 pm 21. Pat J:

20. Still Bill:
————-
Dude. You’ve been listening or watching way too much Glenn Beck. Or maybe too much Bob Basso videos. Whatever. If Obama is a Manchurian candidate, what was Bush other than a sock puppet for Dick Cheney?

Mar 26, 2009 - 7:20 pm 22. Still Bill:

Pat J: “Dude” is a term used only by feminized punks. Obama is a clown, with or without a teleprompter. Deal with it girly boy.

Mar 26, 2009 - 8:48 pm 23. MiamaMan:

Mr. Cohen is the perfect example explained in Jamie Glasov’s new book “United in Hate”.

He is not alone. He belongs to the same Jewish tribe as America-Number-One-Hater Noam Chomsky, and Castro-Friend Steven Spielberg. They are many more in between.

Learn this to be a mental malady, in the strictest sense of the word. They must hate the hand that feeds them, so as to mask self-loathing and self-contempt, and a deep feeling of frustration. Justification is soon brought in, for how can you explain hating what nurtures you, allows your freedom to blossom, but by a perverted sense of justifying the opposite.

Recent typical example. Yesterday in the O’Reilly factor, Fox contributor and left loony Dr. Hill, in a discussion about the drug war in Mexico, totally placed the blame on the US for “exploiting” the masses and the poor in Mexico that then do not have any other choice than to lash out with drug trafficking. Talk about perverted logic.

Yes, there must be blame for the US consuming the drugs, even for arms going south, but to ascribe blame for something obviously the result of Mexican’s societal choices is to force yourself to find a scapegoat.

Likewise, Obama et al, believes the grievance of the Arabs is because they were also “exploited” by capitalists (white capitalists of course) trumping what even Obama Bin Laden tells us in every video, that this fight is not one caused by exploitation of any sort, but simply by Quoranic guidance against the Kafir.

Mar 27, 2009 - 5:33 am 24. Pat J:

At least I’m man enough not to resort to name calling.

Mar 27, 2009 - 9:36 am 25. Mike_K:

“Dude” is not a name ? My gosh !

The willing tools who support the Cohen side of the argument, would do well to read Tony Cordesman’s analysis of an Iran-Israel nuclear exchange.

The short version?

This would mean, Cordesman suggests, some 16 million to 28 million Iranians dead within 21 days, and between 200,000 and 800,000 Israelis dead within the same time frame. The total of deaths beyond 21 days could rise very much higher, depending on civil defense and public health facilities, where Israel has a major advantage.

It is theoretically possible that the Israeli state, economy and organized society might just survive such an almost-mortal blow. Iran would not survive as an organized society. “Iranian recovery is not possible in the normal sense of the term,” Cordesman notes.

The difference in the death tolls is largely because Israel is believed to have more nuclear weapons of very much higher yield (some of 1 megaton), and Israel is deploying the Arrow advanced anti-missile system in addition to its Patriot batteries. Fewer Iranian weapons would get through.

The difference in yield matters. The biggest bomb that Iran is expected to have is 100 kilotons, which can inflict third-degree burns on exposed flesh at 8 miles; Israel’s 1-megaton bombs can inflict third-degree burns at 24 miles. Moreover, the radiation fallout from an airburst of such a 1-megaton bomb can kill unsheltered people at up to 80 miles within 18 hours as the radiation plume drifts. (Jordan, by the way, would suffer severe radiation damage from an Iranian strike on Tel Aviv.)

Cordesman assumes that Iran, with less than 30 nuclear warheads in the period after 2010, would aim for the main population centers of Tel Aviv and Haifa, while Israel would have more than 200 warheads and far better delivery systems, including cruise missiles launched from its 3 Dolphin-class submarines.

The very short version ?

Cordesman spells out that the real stakes in the crisis that is building over Iran’s nuclear ambitions would certainly include the end of Persian civilization, quite probably the end of Egyptian civilization, and the end of the Oil Age. This would also mean the end of globalization and the extraordinary accretions in world trade and growth and prosperity that are hauling hundreds of millions of Chinese and Indians and others out of poverty.

The rest is foolish posturing.

Mar 27, 2009 - 2:41 pm 26. wancow the islamogynist:

MiamaMan, you read “United in Hate?” Somewhere on this site, we aught to have a BOOK REVIEW section to get through all those conservative titles… Anne Coulter’s Guilty is halarious and worth reading for the humourous annecdotes alone… I heard Glasov on the radio, and am tempted to pick up the book, but would really love to know how people like it…

Mar 27, 2009 - 3:01 pm 27. Still Bill:

Pat J: Did you refer to someone as “this pasty white guy?” Is that “name calling” sissy boy? You’re still a punk.

Mar 27, 2009 - 3:40 pm 28. MiamiMan:

25. Mr. Wancow

Yes, I read “United in Hate” by Jamie Glazov. Verily this book should be studied more than simply read, it’s crucial to the understanding of today’s far-left liberal, and liberal in general, mind, in relation to the Islamic threat to our civilization.

Expect something very different from Ann Coulter. Although, as I conservative, I like and admire Ms. Coulter, hers is not my style, and sincerely I only tried once one of her books and found it desultory and not well written, did not finish it, and donated it to Goodwill. I prefer to hear her talk.

But Glazov is a brainy guy, a genius perhaps, and his book brings new light to the baffling subject in question: that liberal that hates and works against his own great country that nurtures and provides him with the stage for his own success (Ward Churchill, Reverend Wright, Noam Chomsky, Jane Fonda, Sean Penn, and on, and on, and on).

“United in Hate” draws heavily from a famous classic, which I also ordered and am finishing now, one great book that was recommended by the late President Eisenhower, “The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movement” by Eric Hoffer. Glazov even uses the “true believer” term throughout his new book.
http://www.amazon.com/True-Believer-Thoughts-Movements-Perennial/dp/0060505915/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1238204910&sr=1-1

Mar 27, 2009 - 6:50 pm 29. Oldguy:

Cohen reminds me of us kids back in the late fourties and fifties: sure the nazis were evil but they had the coolist uniforms.

Mar 28, 2009 - 8:37 am 30. Pat J:

26. Still Bill:
—————–
Actually I was referring to your immaturity in calling me a punk.

Mar 28, 2009 - 8:00 pm 31. Still Bill:

Pat J: I lost my immaturity many years ago in boot camp, Fort Knox, Kentucky. Sgt. Spillers kicked my ass many, many times, and the maturation process readily followed. I hated him then. I remember once in front of the whole platoon he told me if he ever had me in a combat unit, I would be the first one he shot. I answered right back, “no you won’t because I’ll shoot you first”. I think that’s the only time I saw him crack a smile in basic training. Later when I made it through basic, Sgt Spillers and several of my buddies wound up in a Louisville bar together. We all got pretty drunk.

Mar 29, 2009 - 3:35 am 32. NYT’s Roger Cohen cheers up for James “F*ck the Jews” Baker « politinfo:

[...] Ronald Radosh reviewed Cohen’s columns and the response to them in “Memo to the New York Times: Fire Roger Cohen!” This week he returned to the subject in “Roger Cohen’s continuing nonsense.” [...]

Jun 4, 2009 - 3:17 am