"...All of this poses something of a dilemma for me. I of course want to respond, but I don't want to stoop to snark ...which I will endeavor to keep as snark- and sarcasm-free as possible under the circumstances..."

Either snark away, or don't. Considering the level of snark and sarcasm in your open letter, the hand-wringing is just pathetic.

I'd rather not get into a public fight with a prominent journalist who, while I often don't agree with him, I still respect. //

I stopped reading here. This actually is a brilliant confirmation of your views.

Brilliant answer. Given Mr Goldberg's history of promoting the Iraq-WMD falsehoods, it is necessary to be suspicious of his non-so-subtle calls for the US to bomb Iran.
Mr Goldberg is by the way among the wise pundits who supports a negotiated peace with the Palestinians. It is reasonable to think that ending the colonization in the West Bank would make Israel safer in the long run - as opposed to wage "preemptive" wars.

Stephanie comes out and says what Lara wouldn't say but implied with snark, yes snark. This is all about Goldberg being an alleged war-mongerer. No Stephanie, your standard for Goldberg is unfair; he should be judged by what he writes and what he bases his writings on, and not on what you think he's conspiring to do. And his article is far more nuanced than you suggest with your psychoanalysis from afar.

More importantly, where does APN stand in the event that Iran is poised to produce nuclear weapons? That's what I would like to know. I know there is a convenient and standard squishy policy statement on this website that speaks of the failure of the U.S. to properly engage the fascist Iranian regime. (Can we at least be real progressives and call regimes like Iran fascist? Or is that not groovy anymore?) But, assuming arguendo, that Iran is poised to produced nuclear weapons, I trust that APN, as a true friend of Israel, would do more than say at that point: "I told you so, you should have been nicer to the Iranians."

The Goldberg article is nuanced, but it says quite literally that an Israeli strike on Iran nuclear facilities is both consensual among Israeli elites and likely to happen anyway. Goldberg is savvy enough to know that the only consequence of such an article is to advance the cause of the strike, which in turn enhances the likelihood that the US strikes Iran first, to prevent an anti-Israel backlash.

Also, if Iran gets nuclear weapons, the consequence is easily predictable: nothing happens, except that the Iranian people are safer from an US-Israeli attack, just as North Korea doesn't nuke its neighbors or the US. North Korea's regime is way more totalitarian (and outright demented) than Iran's, and it's not nuking people around. Iran will not nuke Israel, for the simple reason that Israel can nuke Iran back.

Any argument that Iranian leaders would love to face nuclear annihilation if they can nuke Israel (or that they "love death") is as stupid, false and vile than the antisemitic trash that is spread daily in the Muslim world.

Iran will get the bomb in any case! but only, if the country really wants it! which is not sure. anyway a country of 80 million people is not a target for the small israel. at best an American attack could delay a two-year nuclear weapons (Robert Gates) for a prohibtif COST OF lifes of Americans, Iranians, Israelis, and Arabs in the ME

I can not understand these people who never tire of wanting war with a country that does not represent a danger. the consequences of an Iranian bomb are very speculative and easily containable, but the tens of thousands of deaths a war with Iran are a certiftude 100%

Mr. Chamberlain: "The consequences of a German takeover of Czechoslovakia are very speculative and easily containable, but the tens of thousands of deaths a war with Germany [would bring] are a certitude 100%."

or how about this:

Mr. Sarraut: "The consequences of a German remilitarization of the the Rhineland are very speculative and easily containable (and surely Germany has the right to put German troops on German soil!), but the tens of thousands of deaths a war with Germany [would bring] are a certitude 100%."

@DBL2: Not every single situation in life or world affairs is like Nazi Germany.

@Stephanie:

I don't think you read Goldberg's article based on your response. The salient point of his article is that, all things equal, based on his discussions with Israeli leaders, he believes that there is more than a 50 percent chance that Iran will be attacked by Israel within the next year. But of course, all things aren't equal, and in fact subsequently Goldberg wrote that in light of Stuxnet he believed that an attack was less likely. You impugn a war-monger motive to that--so be it.

Then you write:

"Any argument that Iranian leaders would love to face nuclear annihilation if they can nuke Israel (or that they "love death") is as stupid, false and vile than the antisemitic trash that is spread daily in the Muslim world.'"

I never made that argument and you suggest the contrary as a substitute for addressing what I did argue, by implying my stupidity, falsehood, and vile nature, i.e. presumably racism aimed at the Islamic world (much of which by the way fears an Iranian nuclear capability as much, if not more, than Israel does).

Finally, now we know you think the U.S. or Israel should do nothing if Iran is poised to obtain nuclear weapons, which is the question I posed to Lara. You think nothing should be done, I disagree but really don't know what should be done. But in your response you expose yourself as someone who leads with vile allegations of racism against the Islamic world as a substitute for discussion. And you are exposed accordingly.