Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 10:45 AM ET, 12/12/2010

Time to reset Iran policy

By Jennifer Rubin

There's a Woody Allen joke that reminds us that everything our mothers told us was good for us -- milk, sun and red meat -- isn't, actually. After a week of feckless Iran diplomacy and discussion with some very smart Iran gurus, I'm thinking we need to start asking whether that isn't true about our policy based on economic sanctions and fruitless discussion with the Iranian regime.

I would argue that there are at least five reasons to cut off the conversation. First, we bestow an aura of legitimacy on a regime already divided internally and facing pressure from certain clerics and the Green Movement. So long as we are talking, we are more inclined to pull our punches on issues like human rights atrocities when we meet, get no results and meet again. When you throw in Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's scampering after the Iranian representatives, you realize that, at this point, we are doing more harm than good by engaging the despotic regime.

Second, the only acceptable outcome is a complete dismantling of Iran's nuclear program, not another scheme, unverifiable and inconclusive, to allow Iran limited enrichment of nuclear materials. But the longer we talk, the more likely a "compromise" of this type will emerge. That happened last year, although the Iranians wouldn't close the deal.

Third, the talks as currently constructed focus largely on nuclear issues, ground on which Iran is quite comfortable defending its position. We spend very little time discussing Iran's support for terrorism and human rights abuses, subjects that exacerbate domestic tensions within Iran.

Fourth, there is no indication that the Iranian regime is capable of making a deal. Last October, we offered a very sweet deal to allow a portion of Iran's nuclear material to be enriched and returned to the regime. If that deal fell prey to infighting among various factions within the Iranian government, there isn't much hope for a better deal that can foreclose the possibility of Iran's nuclear capability.

Fifth, with the exception of South Africa, it's hard to come up with an instance in which economic sanctions that inflicted pain on the citizenry have forced an oppressive regime to capitulate on its geopolitical agenda. And in the case of South Africa, we had the support of two dozen other countries to render it a pariah state.

But we need to show our allies how reasonable we are and how recalcitrant the Iranians are, proponents of talks argue. But why? If sanctions are having little or no impact and engagement has become counterproductive, why do we need to impress anyone on our side?

So what should we do? I have four suggestions. First, we should give robust support to the Green Movement (financial, technological and rhetorical), which offers the only hope for positive change and the emergence of a regime that is less horrific on human rights and less aggressive on the world stage. The notion that we will "taint" the Green Movement by helping it is unsupported speculation and contrary to the movement's stated desire for U.S. support.

Second, we should continue and enhance espionage and sabotage of the Iranian nuclear program. Every nuclear scientist who has a "car accident" and every computer virus buys us time, setting back the timeline for Iran's nuclear capability, while exacting a price for those who cooperate with the nuclear program. Think of it as the ultimate targeted sanction.

Third, we need to make human rights a central theme in our bilateral and multilateral diplomacy regarding Iran. The spotlight on the noxious regime helps to undermine the regime's legitimacy at home and emboldens the Green Movement. We should test the theory that the most effective disarmament strategy is a robust human rights policy, one that includes the EU and other nations exerting diplomatic pressure on the regime.

And fourth, we should begin to make the case and agree on a feasible plan for the use of force. When there is a credible threat of force -- not occupation or invasion, but strikes sufficient to hobble Iran's nuclear program, military and Revolutionary Guard -- the decision-making calculus may change. What of the notion that the nation will rally around the flag if attacked? Well, that depends on the nature of the assault and, moreover, how far the regime has alienated the Iranian people by its serial killings, jailings and prison rapes. There is good reason to believe that a wide anti-government coalition views the regime as illegitimate and acting in ways contrary to its stated Islamic precepts. In these circumstances, an attack would serve as a tipping point rather than a rallying point.

The goal should be to do what we can to accelerate the regime's collapse while we work to retard or force surrender of its nuclear program. Yes, this requires a complete rethinking of our strategy, such as it is, to use sanctions and talk to induce an ideologically driven regime to give up its calling card to international influence. We should get started as soon as possible, before the current approach does any further damage to the Green Movement and to our prospects for defanging Iran.

By Jennifer Rubin  | December 12, 2010; 10:45 AM ET
Categories:  Iran, foreign policy  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Morning Bits
Next: Sarah Palin in prose

Comments

Jennifer, many of your suggestions are already in place.

I'm not sure and neither are you, that we're NOT providing support to the Green Movement, but we would be exceptionally foolish to crow about doing so publicly as often happens in blowing covert opertions time-consumingly established.

The Israelis have done and excellent job taking out scientists and with stuxnext. They should continue because they are simply better at covert operations in Iran, which we would no doubt botch all to hell.

Yes, we should provide the IDF with any support it requires when it decides to undertake tactical missions inside Iran, short that is of flying these missions ourselves.

Unfortunately you are completely incorrect when you say:

"Third, we need to make human rights a central theme in our bilateral and multilateral diplomacy regarding Iran."

None of the regimes either friendly to or with an interest in what happens in Iran, (Russia, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, China, Syria, Iraq, North Korea) has any interest in promoting human rights and will not cooperate with such a campaign. If your efforts are truly other than unilateral, you have to leave human rights out of it.

This was a much better post than most of your recent ones about Iran. When you advocate without polemics against Obama, you write with much more clarity and force of argument!

Posted by: 54465446 | December 12, 2010 12:20 PM | Report abuse

Jennifer, Shouldn't all these same restrictions apply to Isreal or are they your fairy queen? It is people like you that create conflict in this world.

Posted by: tx4116 | December 12, 2010 12:35 PM | Report abuse

You're shamelessly defending assassination of Iranian scientists. Where is the moral outrage we're so used to witnessing in relation to terrorist acts? I have one suggestion for you: keep your ideas to yourself!

Posted by: Sama | December 12, 2010 12:35 PM | Report abuse

Nowadays everybody is an expert and has an interest and an opponion on Iranian affairs but the Iranians themselves. What the heck is the matter with you people. Why don't you leave Iranians alone to look after their own interest. Why don't you guys put your nose in middle eastern kingdom Kans and the nuclear apartheid regime of Israel. Iran hasn't hurt or invaded any country. The US and the media facade against the Iranians is noting but being pissed of at Iran because they have no control over it since the collapse of their poppet regime in 1997. Since then Iran has become an issue for everybody. Jerry you are a bad man, very bad man. No more oil for you.

Posted by: Farzin1 | December 12, 2010 1:19 PM | Report abuse

Wow...
I can see that u finally had a half hour time to study the 5000 year History of Iran... Enough to create a storm in a glass of water...
It takes u a lot longer than that to learn to make tea in Japan. But making tea might get u somewhere...
And u think u got it all wired... Huh!

Posted by: Kinesics | December 12, 2010 3:39 PM | Report abuse

"NOTHING CAN DEPRIVE IRAN OF ITS INALIENABLE RIGHT FOR NUCLEAR ENERGY."
BUT, YOU CAN KEEP TRYING BY ALL MEANS TO SABOTAGE IT SUCH AS SANCTIONS, VIRUS, ALL KINDS OF PARANOID MEDIA PROPAGANDA LIES IN THE NEWS VIA FAKE DOCUMENTS LIKE WIKILEAKS, WMD IN IRAQ, IRAN IS A THREAT OR YOU NAME IT LIKE THE WAY THE BIBLE WRITTEN TO BE READ.
UN CHARTER VII ARTICLE 51:
Provides for the right of countries to engage in military action in self-defense, including collective self-defense (i.e. under an alliance) FOR IRAN TO FIGHT FOR ITS RIGHTS AND FREEDOM, LIBERTY. IRAN IS A LAND OF THE BRAVES.
History shows, Iran has never caused any war via propaganda lies in the news like US and Israel, so Iran is not a threat, Israel and Us are the threatS to world peace.

WikiLeaks – A fabricated conspiracy of propaganda lies to isolate Iran from other Muslim nations for US's benefits on behalf of unbreakable bond Israel.

Posted by: clownsandliars1 | December 12, 2010 4:16 PM | Report abuse

Hypocrisy at it's finest!

Assassinations are "targeted sanctions" when the US or Israel do it but if the Iranians do it the neocons call it terrorism.

We can have the bomb and so can India and Israel but Iran cannot have it because they are not like Mubarak or Abdullah and act as per their own views.

So let's forget that we are a super power and have Iran surrounded...... Let's forget that we helped saddaam kill a million of them a decade ago......let's forget that we staged a coup there to kill a domestic democratic government.......let's forget all that and let's just give Israel 10 billion dollars more and send clinton over to kiss the hand of liberman and Netanyahu......


Got it loud and clear Ms Rubin! Please make sure you sign up for the draft because if you bomb Iran the green movement wick become the red movement and they will only be satisfied with the heads of our soliders and allies. Enough of you chicken hawks!

Posted by: mahan99 | December 12, 2010 4:30 PM | Report abuse

A support to the Green Movement IS TO TURN IRAN INTO A NEVER-ENDING WAR TORN COUNTRY LIKE IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN WHERE A BOMB GOES UP DAILY, A CORRUPTED LEADER LIKE SHAH IRAN, TO US'S BENEFITS ON BEHALF OF UNBREAKABLE BOND ISRAEL. SO HOW STUPID THE IRANIANS DISSIDENTS ARE !

Posted by: clownsandliars1 | December 12, 2010 4:42 PM | Report abuse

Jennifer, many of your suggestions are already in place.Posted by: 54465446

BTW/Are you Fuster? Whatever,if JR isn't going to get personally involved here,I doubt if this Forum has much of a shelf life. We are getting very little of the excitment we got from Contentions when Comments were thriving. Commentary gave her a comfortable format where a large # of those that supported her could carry the ball for her. I don't see that happening here. She has low volume, and low energy Comments with a few exceptions.
The ideal format for JR is Contentions without Comments,she can spew all day,and the few that read her,love her spewing.

Posted by: rcaruth | December 12, 2010 5:07 PM | Report abuse

"Every nuclear scientist who has a "car accident" and every computer virus buys us time, setting back the timeline for Iran's nuclear capability, while exacting a price for those who cooperate with the nuclear program."
=======================

This is the most disgusting thing I have ever read. So you are advocating assassinating civilians now? Some other country could use this logic against people who work for Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, etc.

As much as I am against the Iranian government, people like you are a cancer to society, Jennifer Rubin. Many of the Iranian nuclear scientists have no choice but to work for the Iranian government.

If they defect and try for asylum in another country, their family that's left behind gets killed. If they choose not to work for the Iranian government, they get tortured and killed. And if they DO work for the Iranian government, soulless creatures like yourself advocate assassinating them.

Posted by: ClandestineBlaze | December 12, 2010 6:35 PM | Report abuse

In reading the beginning of this post, I wondered how long it would take to get to the invasion. Not long as it happens. One definition of insanity is doing the same thing and expecting a different outcome.

Neocons need a collective visit to the shrink(2).

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | December 12, 2010 7:25 PM | Report abuse

Your reasoning applies equally well to America's pointless, humiliating conversations with Israel.

Where your "reasoning" breaks down though is when you suggest that using car bombs to kill civilian scientists are "targeted sanctions" rather than what they really are -- terrorism.

Posted by: politbureau | December 12, 2010 7:46 PM | Report abuse

If the U.S. is dragged into a war with Iran over "nuclear weapons" which its own intelligence services say don't exist then it will prove Mearsheimer's and Walt's thesis once and for all.

Posted by: politbureau | December 12, 2010 7:56 PM | Report abuse


Hyser in iran
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kxetu3PORCs&feature=grec

Posted by: mystic2 | December 12, 2010 9:29 PM | Report abuse

Do we want to make the same mistake so soon. I hope you all remember the shah. He beleived in real sense that he was a business partner of Israel and he was very effective in Israel's success. Finally his Curiosity pushed him to inquire his interest after twenty some years of investment. within two years of the below interview he was finished. Interesing enough general hyser acted in a total contarst of what the white House had in mind. Hyser spooked the shah and rushed him to leave Iran. U.S projected to be the bad guy as ususal and Israleies ripped all the benefits of twenty six years and over $200 Billion of 35 years ago.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6kySR3fpa5s

Hyser in iran
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kxetu3PORCs&feature=grec

Posted by: mystic2 | December 12, 2010 10:00 PM | Report abuse

Iran, as a signatory to the NPT, does have a right to a nuclear programme. It is not reasonable to demand that they dismantle their nuclear programme.

Iran does not have nuclear weapons. According to most informed experts, they have not made the decision to seek an arsenal. Instead, they are seeking the latent capability to build one.

If you're looking for something to push Iran over the fence to decide to develop an arsenal, you've made some very good suggestions.
Iran's government's priority is to maintain their regime, and they will take very drastic steps to protect it. Ahmedinejad gains power from fear. When we start legitimising those fears by pushing towards regime change, the current regime will only further consolidate power.

Iran will not give up its nuclear programme. They are entitled to it. So why act like we can convince them to drop it? This is a nation which survived a decade-long war with its bitter rival, Iraq, which has patrons of last resort should they need them, which has a proud people and a millennia-old civilisation, and which has not been engaged seriously by the US for decades.

This is not to say Iran has a sympathetic plight or is not in the wrong (both of which are false), but instead to say that American assertion of dominance is not going to scare them and is not going to get us anywhere.

Posted by: j762 | December 12, 2010 10:04 PM | Report abuse

Excellent post. I'm pretty sure, though, that if the Bush administration was too feckless to do anything effective about Iran's nuclear weapons program, then we can't expect any better from Obama and Hillary. I'm afraid it's up to Israel.

Posted by: eoniii | December 12, 2010 10:07 PM | Report abuse

It is hard to believe that the WP actually hires and gives voice to Jennifer Rubin. This is shameful. Ms Rubin should write for the Jerusalem Post not the WP.

Posted by: 9269 | December 12, 2010 11:29 PM | Report abuse

Excellent post. I'm pretty sure, though, that if the Bush administration was too feckless to do anything effective about Iran's nuclear weapons program, then we can't expect any better from Obama and Hillary. I'm afraid it's up to Israel.

Thanks so much. I am afraid you are right. The readers objecting to blowing up scientists helping to put nuclear weapons in the hands of a Revolutionary Islamic state in contravention of multiple UN resolutions would, I suppose, have objected to blowing up Nazi scientists working on a nuclear program in WWII? Well, it's not my policy; it is the Obama administration's. And in this regard I offer nothing but praise.

Posted by: Jennifer Rubin | December 12, 2010 11:41 PM | Report abuse

Who is we, Jennifer? Iran poses no threat to the United States. Instead, WE, the US of A, should engage Iran objectively, open up full diplomatic relations and trade. That's what WE need to do. As for you, who are you, Jennifer?

Posted by: likovid | December 12, 2010 11:50 PM | Report abuse

As one sifts through the deranged ramblings of Ms Rubin, one clearly understands why US foreign policy has become a laughing stock in the international community. Does Ms Rubin truly believe that the world will not give a collective groan over the hypocrisy of the US pointing the finger at Iran's "support for terrorism and human rights abuses"?

The irony apparently is lost on Ms Rubin. Someone needs to penetrate the hermetically sealed bubble that Ms Rubin rides in and break the news to her that the US has no credibility or political capital in regard to either of these issues.

As for her hopes that supporting the Green movement would yield results, it's been made abundantly clear by the Green movement that any support from the US (or appearance of) would be a death sentence to any such movement. This is not unsupported speculation. The green movement has made it abundantly clear that it is not interested in U.S. Support, but apparently Ms Rubin knows better.

The fact that the Green movement also fully supports Iran's nuclear program has gone clearly over Ms Rubin's head.

In one breath, she condemns the Iranians for supporting terrorism, while simultaneously endorsing terrorist attacks on Iranian scientists.

Of course, it goes without saying that Ms Rubin doesn't even make an attempt to discuss he fact that there is ZERO evidence of an Iranian nuclear weapons program, clearly under the delusion that the case has already been made.

Of course, it hasn't. The IAEA has just verified for the 20 something time that Iran is not diverting any nuclear material towards any other program than the declared civilian program.

There's no shortage of lies and conflation in this article either.

Ms Rubin argues that there is no indication that the Iranian regime is capable of making a deal. Well, that's a flat out lie. Iran, with the help of Turkey and Brazil made one, and did so after Obama wrote a letter to the leaders of both countries asking them to try and strike a deal with Iran, and when they succeeded, the hawks in Washington rejected it and condemned the leaders of both states for “not being helpful”.

Me Rubin also omits to mention that last November, Iran said they would accept the October deal with some provisions. What did the West do? They criticized Iran for accepting it. The French foreign minster went so far as to describe the development as “troubling”.

So like the neocons lunatics before her, Ms Rubin's prescription for the disasters of Iraq and Afghanistan is....more of the same.

Posted by: AndreDeAngelis | December 13, 2010 12:06 AM | Report abuse

I'm pretty sure, though, that if the Bush administration was too feckless to do anything effective about Iran's nuclear weapons program, then we can't expect any better from Obama and Hillary. I'm afraid it's up to Israel.

I don't suppose the fact that Iran doesn't have one would have anything to do with it Jennifer?

Posted by: AndreDeAngelis | December 13, 2010 12:07 AM | Report abuse

"If the U.S. is dragged into a war with Iran over "nuclear weapons" which its own intelligence services say don't exist then it will prove Mearsheimer's and Walt's thesis once and for all."

Whether Iran has such a weapons program or not is not a concern for neocons like Jennifer Rubin. What infuriates people like her, and the far right is the fact that Iran is able to function independently of the US. In spite of the UN sanctions (which incidentally are themselves a violation of the NPT), Iran has found no shortage of states prepared to trade and invest in Iran.

The irony of her South African example, is that the US had to be dragged kicking and screaming into backing the boycott. Has she forgotten that the US and UK were supporters of apartheid South Africa (as well as Israel)? That Mandela and the ANC were listed on the terrorist list in the US?

Posted by: AndreDeAngelis | December 13, 2010 12:17 AM | Report abuse

"Where your "reasoning" breaks down though is when you suggest that using car bombs to kill civilian scientists are "targeted sanctions" rather than what they really are -- terrorism."

Superbly put politbureau, but such logic is lost on ideologues like Ms Rubin. In the minds of the neocons, we're the good guys (no matter what) so whatever we do, no matter how macabre, is justified.

You have to love the child like morality these adults have grown up to accept.

And then when a 911 happens, they're the first to pose asinine questions such as "why do they hate us?"

In many ways, Jennifer Rubin is symbolic of what is happening to the American Empire as it declines. Historically empires become increasingly irrational and destructive and they reach their end.

Posted by: AndreDeAngelis | December 13, 2010 12:24 AM | Report abuse

"This was a much better post than most of your recent ones about Iran. When you advocate without polemics against Obama, you write with much more clarity and force of argument!"

That's a remarkable critique. This has to be one of the most unhinged and stale arguments I've read since the the run up to the Iraq war.

I was just beginning to wonder if the AEI ahem, I mean necons, were running out of material and recycling it.

If this and Goldberg is the best that the war party/Israel can throw at a war weary public who are sick to death of burning money supporting unwinnable wars, then that's probably good cause for optimism.

Posted by: AndreDeAngelis | December 13, 2010 12:32 AM | Report abuse

Ms. Rubin has some great ideas there.

Surely those Iranians will flock to our cause if we show them we are serious by murdering their scientists, bombing their factories, and slaying the pride of their military.

Posted by: Mannie_Davis | December 13, 2010 1:41 AM | Report abuse

"Surely those Iranians will flock to our cause if we show them we are serious by murdering their scientists, bombing their factories, and slaying the pride of their military."

Right on Mannie_Davis. Hey, who knows, they might even greet us as liberators....

Posted by: AndreDeAngelis | December 13, 2010 1:45 AM | Report abuse

What an odious debut column from yet another neocon wihout portfolio. Hey, fred hiatt, you've done it again -- bringing your dwindling readership yet another israel first columnist who will agitate for further loss of American blood and treasure to protect israel while it commits slow motion genocide in Palestine, and humiliates Obama and Clinton by singlehandedly destroying the so-called peace process.

Perhaps Fred can get a clue of how jennifer's hasbaric spewage is going over with its readers by reading the comments section. Basically, she is a pathetic version of slick Caroline Glick or manaical Melanie Phillips whose children won't fight as American soldiers, but whose words call for other people's children to fight proxy wars on behalf of beloved israel, our "best friend" and "only democracy in the region.".

Yeah, it's a state of how far this war-torn country has deteriorated that a Washington Post columnist "offers praise" for a policy that targets civilians, professors of universities and compares it to killing Nazi scientists. Wow, WaPo, your death spiral continues apace.

Posted by: ConscientiousObjector1 | December 13, 2010 2:07 AM | Report abuse

Assassination and human rights doesn't seem to go together

Posted by: observation1 | December 13, 2010 2:49 AM | Report abuse

Wow girl! You are so wrong it is not funny. You need to get off your high horse and mix with real people to realise the contradictions in your statements and the underlying hypocrisy of all that you say. Your presumptuousness and aura of righteousness stinks just as bad as listening to any other fundamentalist who has been indoctrinated into believing their own bull.

Posted by: tekabi | December 13, 2010 2:56 AM | Report abuse

So much so for your freedom of speech. You censored my comment. Shame on you. Shame on your country.

Posted by: SharpDiamond | December 13, 2010 4:10 AM | Report abuse

Journalist’s tasks are to educate people so the society moves towards escalation of humanity
To Plan A Plot and use tricks on the nations in progress for personal cause is evil

Posted by: alanmirs | December 13, 2010 5:06 AM | Report abuse

Journalist’s tasks are to educate people so the society moves towards escalation of humanity
To plan a plot and use tricks on the nations in progress for personal cause is evil

Posted by: alanmirs | December 13, 2010 5:16 AM | Report abuse

Shame on the Washington Post for posting such war mongering drivel.

These are the times we live in...the elites of our country casually encourage assasinations and illegal wars. It so easy to be brave, to be immoral when you're not going to be the one pulling the trigger. Shame on you.

Posted by: HarrySmith1 | December 13, 2010 7:51 AM | Report abuse

Short summary:

Some people have human rights and some don't. We decide which.

Posted by: Egbert1984 | December 13, 2010 8:41 AM | Report abuse

You can't call for the assassination of civilian scientists AND claim the high ground on human rights. Those stands are completely incompatible.

Posted by: TerryMcT | December 13, 2010 9:34 AM | Report abuse

Assassination... sabotage... and they have a legal right to unrich uranium under the NPT.... damn, what is happening to this country?

Rubin... need I say more?

Posted by: acedia8 | December 13, 2010 9:35 AM | Report abuse

Jennifer Rubin is an embarrassment. So, now she is applauding the assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists. If she had any brain, she would first consider the question of why there is a supposed conflict with Iran. What is it that Iran has done that is the cause of this great and ridiculous Iranophobia? Has Iran attacked the US? Has it threatened to attack US interests? Even all top US officials have admitted that Iran is not building nuclear weapons. They only claim that Iran "may" decide to develop nuclear weapons in the future. It is like saying we need to execute someone who looks suspicious because he may commit murder in the future.

This whole controversy with Iran is totally unnecessary. The sanctions have no legal justification. They were rammed down the throats of the UN Security Council members by the US. Since the IAEA has no evidence of weapons-related nuclear work in Iran, all the sanctions should be removed immediately. The US should stop this ridiculous obsession with Iran's nuclear program and should attempt to normalize relations with Iran. The US is beginning to look like an absolute fool in its foreign policy.

Posted by: quinterius | December 13, 2010 10:12 AM | Report abuse

Ms Rubin must think she is talking to her pals at Commentary, or in the US State Dept, Middle East Section. Everything she states and recommends should be applied to Israel if she is seriously concerned with the best interests of the USA. We don't need more warmongering, especially by those some of whom have their own sons in the IDF rather than the US military.

Posted by: US1st | December 13, 2010 11:17 AM | Report abuse

Will Holocaust Revisionism save us form another war in the Middle East? Bibi should legalize Holocaust Revisionism in Israel, where it currently is illegal.

“The only reason Bibi [Netanyahu] would place Israel’s relationship with America in total jeopardy is if he thinks that Iran represents a threat like the Shoah,” an Israeli official who spends considerable time with the prime minister has said. “In World War II, the Jews had no power to stop Hitler from annihilating us. Six million were slaughtered. Today, 6 million Jews live in Israel, and someone is threatening them with annihilation. But now we have the power to stop them. Bibi knows that this is the choice.”

Iran has not started a war for over 300 years. Can Israel say the same?

Since 1948 more Jews have KILLED Gentiles: Why is that okay?

Peace.
Michael Santomauro
ReporterNotebook@gmail.com

Posted by: ReporterNotebook | December 13, 2010 1:19 PM | Report abuse

I can't believe how far the Washington Post has sunk in publishing this right wing neocon kook's odiferous ramblings. Her and Thiessen, always itching for another war that they and theirs will never fight in.....

Posted by: JBN59 | December 13, 2010 2:00 PM | Report abuse

Breathtaking advancement of Israel's interests to the detriment of those of the US!!

Have you gone out of your mind Mr. Hiatt?

Posted by: chet380 | December 13, 2010 2:34 PM | Report abuse

Is this peculiar woman an Israeli? They're the ones urging our nation to launch yet another war for their intransigent, rogue state, reducing our already bankrupt treasury and costing many young American lives. Ms. Rubin doesn't realize that, like Samson, her dream of war with Iran will bring down the walls on Israel as well as on those it targets.

Posted by: KCpax | December 13, 2010 6:59 PM | Report abuse

"Ms. Rubin doesn't realize that, like Samson, her dream of war with Iran will bring down the walls on Israel as well as on those it targets."

That's the Zionist centric necon chickenhawks for you. Determined to fight to the last drop of other people's blood.

Posted by: AndreDeAngelis | December 13, 2010 7:59 PM | Report abuse

I'm still looking for a "Report Abuse" button under the main article:

"Every nuclear scientist who has a 'car accident' and every computer virus buys us time..."

This is the kind of argument I was expecting to see on al-qaeda website, but not washington post!

Posted by: johnsmith23251 | December 13, 2010 11:12 PM | Report abuse

"This is the kind of argument I was expecting to see on al-qaeda website, but not washington post!"

It's all the more pronounced how tone deaf these neacons are when one considers that any such action perpetrated by a state like Iran, or Syria, would be regarded as an act of war.

Or imagine if this statement has been made by an Iranian about Israeli nuclear scientists? Jennifer Rubon and co would be howling like banshees.

Posted by: AndreDeAngelis | December 13, 2010 11:57 PM | Report abuse

@KCpax: "Is this peculiar woman an Israeli?"

Aren't all the neo-cons just that, in fact if not in name, with or without formal dual citizenship??

But she may have a good idea, she just has the target definition wrong. That should probably be the neocons and not Iranian scientists (or whoever is next on the Israeli list). That would certainly cut down sharply on our wars, to say nothing of the lives & treasure expended and lost elsewhere in Israel's interest.

Wonder how Jennifer would like that? You know, "Do unto others...." -- oh, sorry, that's after her time.

@JBN59: You are so right, the last place to look for any of these neocons is where the fighting is taking place -- What else are the goyim for, anyway? :-(

Posted by: docbrosk | December 14, 2010 10:55 AM | Report abuse

Placing "car accident" in quotes is enough to qualify you as a thoroughly horrible person.

Posted by: polaris11 | December 14, 2010 7:44 PM | Report abuse


Never heard of this woman- but I would bet she is probably not very attractive.

Posted by: Xavisev | December 15, 2010 12:04 AM | Report abuse

Is the Washington Post the same as the UK's News of the World? It must be with this less than intelligent piece. She gets paid for this rubbish?

Posted by: MungoPark | December 19, 2010 6:07 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2011 The Washington Post Company