New York Times columnist Nick Kristof writes:
I wonder if we in the news media aren’t inadvertently leaving the impression that there is a genuine debate among experts about whether an Israeli military strike on Iran makes sense this year.
There really isn’t such a debate. Or rather, it’s the same kind of debate as the one about climate change — credible experts are overwhelmingly on one side.
Dylan Byers of Politico explains the absurdity of Kristof's claim:
So, there's a lot missing here.
First, there is a debate, a very serious debate -- even among those who believe an attack could yield catastrophic results -- over whether the United States and Israel should allow Iran to cross the nuclear threshold or should use military action to stop it from doing so.
Early last month, former Democratic senator Charles Robb (chair the 2004 Iraq Intelligence Commission) and retired general and air commander Charles Wald (a leader of the Bipartisan Policy Center's Foreign Policy Project) wrote a column in the Wall Street Journal arguing that military action must be considered as a means for preventing Iran's nuclear ambitions. ...
Of the three "credible experts" Kristof cites in order to make his argument, two are former Obama staffers -- former State Department director of policy planning Anne-Marie Slaughter and former Defense Department under secretary Michèle Flournoy -- and the other is Middle East commentator Patrick Lang, who on his blog refers to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his senior staff as "Bibi and the Ziocons."
Whole thing here.