Terrorism and Double Standards


Jonathan Tobin makes Glenn Greenwald’s point for him:

Rather than the alleged U.S. and Israeli covert operators being called terrorists, it is the Iranian scientists who are the criminals. They must be stopped before they kill.

It’s not hard to understand that assassinating people with the goal of affecting or changing the policy of another government is one of the legal definitions of terrorism. Paul Pillar explained this earlier today:

The killing of an individual foreigner overseas, if carried out for a political or policy purpose by either a nonstate actor or clandestine agents of a state, is an act of international terrorism. At least that is how U.S. law defines it, for purposes such as the State Department’s annual reports on terrorism.

Greenwald’s argued in his most recent post that an act that is treated as terrorism when committed by another government or group, but it is not treated as terrorism when it is committed by the U.S. or client states. Tobin’s statement is a perfect example of this double standard. The latest scientist slain in Iran was not committing any crimes that anyone can prove, but he was killed anyway on the grounds that he was part of a nuclear program that other governments cannot prove is being used to develop nuclear weapons. In Tobin’s view, the victim was the criminal, and no doubt the people who ordered and carried out the hit are to be praised for their good work.

Tobin takes for granted that killing this scientist has something to do with averting a second Holocaust. This is a deeply irrational and unfounded assumption, but it is one that informs everything else Tobin says. Israel has a nuclear deterrent of hundreds of warheads that would keep Iran from attacking it even if Iran had a nuclear weapon. There is still no evidence that the Iranian leadership has decided to develop a nuclear weapon. The Iranian leadership is intent on the self-preservation of their regime rather than mass suicide, and the official Iranian position is that the use of nuclear weapons is forbidden by Islamic law. On the basis of this total fantasy of an Iranian nuclear first-strike attack on Israel, Tobin sanctions the murder of people who may be involved in nothing more than legitimate scientific research. “They must be stopped before they kill,” he says, but there is no reason to think that “they” are going to do the killing he fears. It goes without saying that these acts have nothing to do with American or Israeli self-defense.

Share      Filed under: foreign policy, politics

4 Responses to “Terrorism and Double Standards”

  1. Honestly Daniel, you’re being far too kind to Tobin.

  2. As I posted earlier today on Phil Giraldi’s blog, I was taken aback to observe Joe Scarborough laugh about the Iranian assassination on Morning Joe this morning and to see supposedly religious John Meachum (former Newsweek editor and co-editor with Sally Quinn of the Washington Post’s On Religion column) chuckle in response. About 20 minutes later Al Sharpton came on and spoke disapprovingly of the laughter over the assassination. It was the first time I think I have agreed with anything Rev. Al has said. I don’t have a religious bone in my body, but I thought Scarborough’s reaction was highly distasteful.

    But it is interesting to see Joe Scarborough, who turned outspokenly against the war in Afghanistan a few years back (the reason I started watching Morning Joe) and was openly against the Libyan war, has signed on to the forthcoming war against Iran. (He still defends the Iraq war “because the CIA said Iraq had WMDs.”)

  3. Joe Scarborough is a liar and a fraud. He’s also a grinning idiot. Back when he got his show in 2003 he would always say “My man Donald Rumsfeld.”

    For what it’s worth, I agree with what Sharpton said too.

  4. I think it’s obvious that this was an act of war, and calling it terrorism is pretty much besides the point. Every violent act of war is “terrorism”, in that it kills people in order to change another state’s policies. But that also makes it sort of moot. The real story here is not about terrorism per se, but the fact that someone, probably ourselves and Israel, are at war with Iran, and some people are actually dying as a result.

    Iran doesn’t really have a good option for counterattack for this kind of warfare, and for that reason, it will probably continue. It’s been going on for a while. Stuxnet was an act of war, for example, even though it didn’t kill anyone.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.