I've admired Wes Clark for a long time. But his comments to Ariana Huffington about wealthy Jews pushing the country toward war with Iran strike me as nutty and disturbing. Either I seriously misjudged the man, or his comments were misquoted or taken wildly out of context. Matthew Yglesias, however, thinks Clark's comments are perfectly spot-on. Indeed, he says they're not just correct but obviously so. As he writes, "Everything Clark said, in short, is true. What's more, everybody knows it's true." Well, I don't know it's true. Moreover, I find Yglesias's defense of the proposition that it's obviously true, and his further contention that criticism of Clark's comments amounts to Israel hawks stifling debate, to be wildly unconvincing. One of the things Yglesias considers to be "obviously true" is that "many American Jewish organizations are pushing for war with Iran." His evidence for this is that the Anti-Defamation League, AIPAC, and other Jewish organizations are spreading alarm about the prospect of Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon. Really, though, does being alarmed about Iran mean you favor war? I'm extremely alarmed at the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran, but I think an American military strike would create more problems than it would solve. Richard Just is also alarmed about a nuclear Iran but skeptical about a military strike. So it's wrong to assume that expressing alarm about Iran getting the bomb is ipso facto a case for war. But even if Yglesias were right about that--if it were true that being alarmed about a nuclear Iran can only be cover for a secret pro-war agenda--the rest of his argument doesn't follow. The disturbing thing about Clark's comments isn't his observation that rich Jews are pushing for war. It's his belief that we will go to war because they desire it. Here is how Huffington described her conversation with Clark:

When we asked him what made him so sure the Bush administration was headed in this direction, he replied: "You just have to read what's in the Israeli press. The Jewish community is divided but there is so much pressure being channeled from the New York money people to the office seekers."

Again, the context here may be muddled, but it seems that Clark is saying he's sure the United States is going to bomb Iran because rich Jews are pushing for it. I don't think it's anti-Semitic to say that the pro-Israel lobby has considerable influence in American politics, and could flex its muscle on issues like foreign aid to Israel, just as the pharmaceutical lobby can heavily influence health care legislation or the gun lobby can squelch gun control. But to suggest that a tiny clique of Jewish financiers can by themselves force the American government to go to war goes well beyond any hard-headed analysis of Jewish political power. It assumes that small numbers of wealthy Jews essentially control the government. We could argue about whether Clark's analysis is anti-Semitic; I think it is. But I don't see how you can say it's obviously true. Update: Due to a typo, I originally wrote that "The disturbing thing about Clark's comments is his observation that rich Jews are pushing for war." What I meant to write is that "The disturbing thing about Clark's comments isn't his observation that rich Jews are pushing for war." That was my central point: Arguing that you can be sure the administration is going to start a war solely because rich Jews are pushing for it strays well beyond recognizing the influence of the pro-Israel lobby and into the realm of conspiratorial anti-Semitism. --Jonathan Chait