Bennis: Israeli soldiers come forward saying they had no restrictions rules of engagement
AIPAC – Israel Lobby
Israel’s American Chattel By Paul Craig Roberts
By Paul Craig Roberts
March 18, 2009 “Information Clearing House”
“I do not believe the National Intelligence Council could function effectively while its chair was under constant attack by unscrupulous people with a passionate attachment to the views of a political faction in a foreign country.
“The tactics of the Israel Lobby plumb the depths of dishonor and indecency and include character assassination, selective misquotation, the willful distortion of the record, the fabrication of falsehoods, and an utter disregard for the truth. The aim of this Lobby is control of the policy process through the exercise of a veto over the appointment of people who dispute the wisdom of its views, the substitution of political correctness for analysis, and the exclusion of any and all options for decision by Americans and our government other than those that it favors.
“There is a special irony in having been accused of improper regard for the opinions of foreign governments and societies by a group so clearly intent on enforcing adherence to the policies of a foreign government – in this case, the government of Israel. I believe that the inability of the American public to discuss, or the government to consider, any option for US policies in the Middle East opposed by the ruling faction in Israeli politics has allowed that faction to adopt and sustain policies that ultimately threaten the existence of the state of Israel. It is not permitted for anyone in the United States to say so. This is not just a tragedy for Israelis and their neighbors in the Middle East; it is doing widening damage to the national security of the United States.”
Ambassador Charles Freeman on declining his appointment as Chairman of the National Intelligence Council, Wall Street Journal, March 10, 2009
Many conservatives take vicarious pleasure in America’s superpower status. Bush’s flaunting of American power is one reason conservatives took scant notice of Bush’s police state measures and ill-conceived wars. Conservatives were so delighted with Bush giving the finger to the UN, the world community and especially France, a country conservatives have despised ever since Charles DeGaulle refused to follow the American line, that conservatives paid no attention to Bush’s assault on civil liberty and his squandering of America’s soft power.
Charles Freeman: Israeli Lobby Has A Hammer Lock On Discussion & Policy
March 15, 2009 CNN
Vodpod videos no longer available.
more about “Charles Freeman: Israeli Lobby Has A …“, posted with vodpod
Pt 2 Continue reading
The Tactics Of the Israel Lobby By Charles Freeman + Obama pick ‘too critical of Israel’
By Charles Freeman
ICH
March 11, 2009 “WSJ”
To all who supported me or gave me words of encouragement during the controversy of the past two weeks, you have my gratitude and respect.
You will by now have seen the statement by Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair reporting that I have withdrawn my previous acceptance of his invitation to chair the National Intelligence Council. Continue reading
Preaching to the Choir? By Timothy V. Gatto + video
By Timothy V. Gatto
Featured Writer
Dandelion Salad
liberalpro.blogspot.com
March 2, 2009
There are so many of my fellow countrymen that wish Barack Obama were really the answer to this nations errant wandering. So far, since World War II, we have seen this nation violate just about every humanitarian principle ever developed by a modern civilization. We have overthrown governments for monetary gain, for the industrialists and the agricultural elite, for resources and markets, defying international law, and succeeding. We have become not a representative republic; the form of government proposed in The Constitution by our forefathers, instead we seem to have opted for a military oligarchy. Continue reading
Empire: Israel and the US
In this episode of Empire, Marwan Bishara, Al Jazeera’s senior political analyst, and his guests zero in on the special relationship between the US and Israel.
They explore who benefits from the special relationship and whether the status quo will prevail.
Vodpod videos no longer available.
more about “Empire: Israel and the US“, posted with vodpod
Part 2
see
Pepe Escobar: How the Obama presidency is developing its Iran strategy
The Politics of An Israeli Extermination Campaign: Backers, Apologists and Arms Suppliers by Prof. James Petras
by Prof. James Petras
Global Research, January 2, 2009
Introduction
Because of the unconditional support of the entire political class in the US, from the White House to Congress, including both Parties, incoming and outgoing elected officials and all the principle print and electronic mass media, the Israeli Government feels no compunction in publicly proclaiming a detailed and graphic account of its policy of mass extermination of the population of Gaza.
Israel’s sustained and comprehensive bombing campaign of every aspect of governance, civic institutions and society is directed toward destroying civilized life in Gaza. Israel’s totalitarian vision is driven by the practice of a permanent purge of Arab Palestine informed by Zionism, an ethno-racist ideology, promulgated by the Jewish state and justified, enforced and pursued by its organized backers in the United States.
The facts of Israeli extermination have become known: In the first six days of round the clock terror bombing of major and minor populations centers, the Jewish State has murdered and seriously maimed over 2,500 people, mostly dismembered and burned in the open ovens of missile fire. Scores of children and women have been slaughtered as well as defenseless civilians and officials.
McCain and Israel’s Bombing of the U.S.S. Liberty
2008 Presidential Candidate Ralph Nader discusses John McCain and Israel’s bombing in the U.S.S. Liberty. From The Forum Auditorium, Cleveland, Ohio, October 30, 2008.
Obama: Change You Can Believe In–Not, Part 3: Israel and Iran
by Kellia Ramares
Speaking Truth to Power
Oct 28, 2008
Thursday, 30 October 2008
Israel and Iran: Which country comes foremost in US foreign policy, the United States or Israel? Sometimes it’s hard to tell. The Israeli-centric approach to US Middle East foreign policy, which is unfair to the Palestinians and dangerous to a United States dependent on foreign oil, will not change in an Obama Administration.
A Truth To Power Exclusive
To read Part One of this series CLICK HERE
To read Part Two of this series CLICK HERE
Visit Kellia’s “No Pitch” JOURNALISM BLOG
Which country comes foremost in US foreign policy, the United States or Israel? Sometimes it’s hard to tell. The Israeli-centric approach to US Middle East foreign policy, which is unfair to the Palestinians and dangerous to a United States dependent on foreign oil, will not change in an Obama Administration.
Which office is Obama running for?
On June 4, 2008, the day after Barack Obama clinched the Democratic nomination, he spoke to AIPAC, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. Here are some excerpts of that speech:
I want you to know that today I’ll be speaking from my heart and as a true friend of Israel. And I know that when I visit with AIPAC, I am among friends. Good Friends. Friends who share my strong commitment to make sure that they bond between the United States and Israel is unbreakable today, tomorrow, and forever.
… I was drawn to the belief that you could sustain a spiritual, emotional and cultural identity. And I deeply understood the Zionist idea – that there is always a homeland at the center of our story. … We know the establishment of Israel was just and necessary, rooted in centuries of struggle and decades of patient work. But 60 years later, we know that we cannot relent, we cannot yield, and as president I will never compromise when it comes to Israel’s security….Those who threaten Israel threaten us. Israel has always faced these threats on the front lines. And I will bring to the White House an unshakeable commitment to Israel’s security. … Let me be clear. Israel’s security is sacrosanct. It is non-negotiable. The Palestinians need a state that is contiguous and cohesive, and that allows them to prosper – but any agreement with the Palestinian people must preserve Israel’s identity as a Jewish state, with secure, recognized and defensible borders. Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided.1
[…]
Understand that Zionism is a political philosophy and is not the same as Judaism, which is a religion. One does not have to be Jewish to be a Zionist. In fact, Christian Zionists are prominent as supporters of and elected officials from the Republican Party.3 Some Christian Zionists, particularly the Dispensationalists,–the late Rev. Jerry Falwell was one–want Israel to claim all of Palestine because they believe that this is a necessary precursor to the Second Coming of Christ.4 However, these Christian Zionists also believe that the Jews and all other non-Christians will be condemned on Judgment Day. So they don’t have any particular love for the Jewish people.
[…]
via Carolyn Baker – OBAMA: CHANGE YOU CAN BELIEVE IN–NOT!, Part 3, By Kellia Ramares
see
Obama: Change You Can Believe In–Not (Part 1: The Economy)
Obama: Change You Can Believe In–Not Part 2: Foreign Policy
Is Barack Obama a Socialist. or simply a centrist with integrity? By Paul A. Donovan
Twelve Reasons to Reject Obama and Support Nader/McKinney
Obama the Stalker by Joel S. Hirschhorn
Ralph Nader: I Accuse Barack Obama Of Antisemitism Against Arabs! + Defeating Corporate Control
Only Nader Has Pointed Out the Danger (AIPAC)
Obama’s speech at AIPAC (video; transcript) + Entire Speech (updated)
Stewart Speaks the Truth About Presidential Pandering to Israel!
Iran Resolution Shelved in Rare Defeat for Israel Lobby By Jim Lobe
By Jim Lobe
ICH
09/27/08
WASHINGTON, 26 Sep (IPS)
In a significant and highly unusual defeat for the so-called ‘Israel Lobby’, the Democratic leadership of the House of Representatives has decided to shelve a long-pending, albeit non-binding, resolution that called for President George W. Bush to launch what critics called a blockade against Iran.
House Congressional Resolution (HR) 362, whose passage the powerful American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) had made its top legislative priority this year, had been poised to pass virtually by acclamation last summer.
But an unexpectedly strong lobbying effort by a number of grassroots Iranian-American, Jewish-American, peace, and church groups effectively derailed the initiative, although AIPAC and its supporters said they would try to revive it next year or if Congress returns to Washington for a ‘lame-duck’ session after the November elections.
Congress, which may still adopt a package of new unilateral economic sanctions against Iran — some of which the administration has already imposed — over the weekend, is expected to adjourn over the next several days.
”We’ll resubmit it when Congress comes back, and we’ll have even more signatures,” the resolution’s main author, New York Democrat Rep. Gary Ackerman, told the Washington Times, adding that the resolution currently has 270 co-sponsors, or some two-thirds of the House’s entire membership.
Still, the decision by the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Rep. Howard Berman, to shelve HR 362 marked an unusual defeat for AIPAC, according to its critics who charged that the resolution was designed to lay the groundwork for the Bush administration or any successor administration to take military action against Iran.
‘This was a joint effort by several groups to really put the focus on the dangers presented by such a resolution over the opposition of one of the most powerful lobbies in the country,’ said Trita Parsi, president of the National Iranian American Council (NIAC).
Among other provisions, the resolution declared that preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capacity was ‘vital to the national security interests of the United States’ — language that is normally used to justify military action — and ‘demand(ed) that the President initiate an international effort to immediately and dramatically increase the economic, political and diplomatic pressure on Iran to verifiably suspend its nuclear enrichment activities…’
Among the means it called for were ‘prohibiting the export to Iran of all refined petroleum products; imposing stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains and cargo entering or departing Iran; and prohibiting the international movement of all Iranian officials not involved in negotiating the suspension of Iran’s nuclear programme.’
Although the resolution’s sponsors explicitly denied it — indeed, one clause stated that ‘nothing in this resolution shall be construed as an authorisation of the use of force against Iran’ — the resolution’s critics charged that the latter passage could be used to justify a blockade against Iran, an act of war under international law.
‘Ambiguity in the text of the resolution — whether intended by its drafters or not — has led some to see it as a de-facto approval for a land, air and sea blockade of Iran, any of which could be considered an act of war,’ according to Deborah DeLee, president of Americans for Peace Now (APN), a Zionist group that has long urged the administration to engage in direct talks with Tehran and that lobbied against the resolution.
Two key Democratic congressmen, who had initially co-sponsored the resolution, Reps. Robert Wexler and Barney Frank, unexpectedly defected in July, insisting that its language be changed to exclude any possibility that it could be used to justify war against Iran and to include new provisions urging Washington to directly engage Tehran.
The resolution was introduced last May, shortly after AIPAC’s annual meeting during which then-Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert reportedly told the House Democratic leadership, including Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Berman, and Ackerman that economic sanctions against Iran had run their course and that stronger action, including a possible naval quarantine, was needed to increase pressure on Tehran to halt its nuclear programme.
The meeting also followed talks between Olmert and Bush who, despite an strongly hawkish speech before Israel’s Knesset, privately told his hosts that Washington would almost certainly not attack on Iranian nuclear facilities nor give a green light Israel to launch an attack of its own before he leaves office in January 2009, according to a recent account by London’s Guardian newspaper. The administration itself never took a position on the resolution.
At the time, the price of oil was skyrocketing, and the military brass in the Pentagon, increasingly concerned about the deteriorating situations in Afghanistan and Pakistan, was expressing its opposition to military action against Iran in unusually blunt terms.
Nonetheless, AIPAC pushed hard for adoption of the resolution, even as it, like its Congressional sponsors, insisted that it was not designed to justify military action.
Just last week, in a final push for the resolution’s passage, AIPAC drafted a letter that was circulated to House members who had not yet co-sponsored the resolution. While it denounced as ‘utter nonsense’ suggestions that the resolution could be used to justify military action, the text also stressed that Tehran’s ‘pursuit of nuclear weapons and regional hegemony’ posed ‘real and growing’ threats to ‘the vital national security interests of the United States’.
AIPAC’s failure was particularly notable given the presence at the U.N. General Assembly in New York this week of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, whose repeated and predictably provocative predictions about the demise of Israel and ‘the American empire’ have been used routinely by AIPAC to rally public and elite opinion against Tehran and underline the threat it allegedly poses.
In announcing that the resolution has been shelved, Berman said he shared critics’ concerns about the resolution’s working and will not bring it before his committee until his concerns were addressed. ‘If Congress is to make a statement of policy, it should encompass a strategy on how to gain consensus on multilateral sanctions to change Iran’s behaviour,” his spokesperson told the Times.
*Jim Lobe’s blog on U.S. foreign policy, and particularly the neo-conservative influence in the Bush administration, can be read at http://www.ips.org/blog/jimlobe/.
FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. This constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
see
War with Iran – On, Off or Undecided? by Stephen Lendman
A Vote For Military Force Against Iran? AIPAC’s House Resolution, H. Con. Res. 362
HR 362 and the Alarming Escalation of Hostility Towards Iran
Should We Fear Iran? The Peter Principle Playoffs By Sheila Samples
Full Text of Ahmadinejad’s Speech to the UN General Assembly
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Larry King Live
Israel asked US for green light to bomb nuclear sites in Iran
Democracy Now!: Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
Myth of Iran wiping Israel off the map dispelled (interview with Ahmadinejad)
Ahmadinejad DID NOT threaten to “wipe Israel off the map.”
Iranian President Ahmadinejad to Turkish TV – Interview
old blogs:
Does Iran’s President Want Israel Wiped Off The Map – Does He Deny The Holocaust?
Iranian President Ahmadinejad’s letter to the American people
War by Deception
Updated: Aug. 21, 2011; added the Director’s Cut version.
Sent to DS from Ry Dawson
http://www.rys2sense.com/anti-neocons
Image by hayley.bailey via Flickr
50:19 – Feb 20, 2008
How a Zionist cabal planned and faked evidence and news stories to create a war with Iraq and the ultimate false flag 9/11. The Pentagon is the largest corporation in the world and it runs the US media top down and benefits from religious conflict which it helps to foster.
U.S. – Iran War: U.S. Intentions Unclear; Israel & Israel Lobby Press for War
Sent to me by the author.
by William H. White
original source
August 14, 2008
Mixed Signals
After months of increasing expectations that the Bush administration was preparing to attack Iran, a series of events in the last few weeks indicated a possible shift in strategy. The central question about these events, listed below, is whether they represent a genuine shift away from intended war making, or are just repositioning designed to enhance conditions for the long-planned attack on Iran?
Among those events in question:
- Resolution of the Lebanon’s latest internal conflict, initially trigged by a failed effort to seize Hezbollah’s communications infrastructure, apparently inspired and backed by the Bush administration, after which Lebanon’s government and Hezbollah reached an accommodation, leaving those facilities intact and strengthening Hezbollah’s already dominant military and political position;
- Israel and Syria initiated and acknowledged ongoing negotiations, despite the objections by the Bush administration;
- Iraqi factions agreed to halt the U.S.-back offensive against Sadr City in Baghdad, allowing Iraqi troops, but not U.S. troops, to patrol the district;
- Israel and Hamas, using Egypt as a go-between, negotiated the extension of a developing de facto cease-fire in Gaza;
- Preparations by the Bush administration to give up power at the end of their legal term of office, indicating an acceptance of such a termination;
- Iraq’s government indicating, in the face of White House pressure, that it wants a U.S. withdrawal time table;
- U.S. participation in “direct talks” with Iran and possible establishment of a U.S. interest section in Tehran.
- U.S. reportedly rejected Israeli weapons requests and warned Israel against attacking Iran.
Prediction Error
While it is clear that speculation about the future is particularly prone to error, we think it important to acknowledge such misjudgments, as we do now by noting our April 2008 conclusion about a likely US attack on Iran by the end of June:
“Since we continue to believe the attack will likely come before the end of May, or, at the latest June, we think it is likely the attack will come between May 11, 2008 and June 30, 2008. If not, then with near certainty before the US elections in November. Should the attack not come before Bush leaves office, the chances of a major attack on Iran would be greatly diminished, no matter which of the three remaining major candidates takes office in his place, even if potential war provoking incidents between the US and Iran were to occur. And this is why the Israel Lobby is pressing Bush to act before it is ‘too late’.” ~ April 30, 2008.
Covert Acts of War
Nevertheless, acts of war by the U.S. against Iran are occurring. The Bush administration, with Congressional approval, has undertaken covert acts of war against Iran. These ongoing actions, funded by Congressional appropriations for operations within Iran meant to destabilize Iran enough to provoke either regime change or policy modification, include bombings and assassinations. While one could argue that the U.S.- Iran war on a covert level has already begun, these actions, while provocative, have not created within the present government in Tehran a provocation of sufficient magnitude to warrant a state of war, which would presumably result in Iranian attacks on US naval and ground forces in the region, if not wider attacks elsewhere. Attacks the Bush administration appears to be inviting, perhaps with the expectation that the resulting losses and counter-attacks would generate public support for the administration and the Republican presidential candidate.
Recent Events Undermine Support for War with Iran
Advocating a war between the U.S. and Iran suffers from the widely held judgment that the last attempt to contain Iranian influence by war-making, the Israeli attacks on Hezbollah in Lebanon, resulted in exactly the opposite outcome. In addition, increased Iranian influence is one of the few unambiguous results of the U.S. invasion of Iraq.
Economic and political climates have changed from the time of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, wherein unintended economic consequences of the Iraq war and large U.S. deficits have undermined the U.S. corporate support for Bush and Cheney. A U.S. war with Iran now is seen as bad for “business as usual”, a grave, if not fatal, flaw for any U.S. policy initiative. While some of the same companies that supported and profited from the invasion of Iraq stand to gain from an U.S. – Iran war, a far larger portion of corporate interests see this new conflict as a significant danger to the general economy and their overall interests.
Despite repeated assertions about success in Iraq, the Iraq invasion is widely considered have been a strategic blunder with vast costs and few, if any, benefits. Now, with many of the same advocates of the Iraq invasion pressing to attack Iran, the U.S. military establishment has move from caution to alarm about undertaking a conflict with a potentially more difficult opponent for equally dubious objectives, including the suspicion an attack on Iran may be an ill advised effort to correct problems created by the Iraq invasion and a way to avoid admitting a mistake. These concerns add to widely held doubts about Bush’s competence and judgment to undertake such war, even if it were otherwise consider a viable policy.
In an August 13, 2008 report in Haaretz.com, the online edition of Haaretz Newspaper in Israel, an arms request, passed to Bush during his visit to Israel in May, was subsequently rejected by the Bush administration: “Following Bush’s return to Washington, the administration studied Israel’s request, and this led it to suspect that Israel was planning to attack Iran within the next few months. The Americans therefore decided to send a strong message warning it not to do so.” While the weapons requested were not identified in the story, except to characterize them as “offensive systems”, they apparently were deployable within a short period of time and uniquely applicable to an attack on Iran, likely ordinance such as deep penetration bombs. The story went on to report: “U.S. National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mike Mullen both visited here in June and, according to the Washington Post, told senior Israeli defense officials that Iran is still far from obtaining nuclear weapons, and that an attack on Iran would undermine American interests. Therefore, they said, the U.S. would not allow Israeli planes to overfly Iraq en route to Iran.” While Haaretz’s sources may be part of a disinformation campaign, if true it may indicate resistance to an attack on Iran extends into the Oval Office, further suggesting a rift between Bush and Cheney, whose enthusiasm for attacking Iran instead of negotiating is apparently undiminished. It might also explain why the Israel Lobby’s war starting resolution remains bottled up in committee in both houses of the U.S. Congress.
Israeli and Bush administration claims about Iranian nuclear weapons development appear a red herring on the same order as the Weapons of Mass Destruction claims advanced prior to the invasion of Iraq. Only now, having learned from the Bush administration’s characterizing Whitehouse cherry picking intelligence before the Iraq invasion as institutional “intelligence mistakes”, the U.S. intelligence community made clear its skepticism about administration claims of an Iranian nuclear weapons program in its November National Intelligence Estimate.
European Union and NATO support for an attack on Iran is nonexistent, with the latest conflict between Russia and Georgia raising additional concerns about provoking armed conflict with Iran, a country that receives military equipment and training from Russia and shares its northern borders with former Soviet Union republics Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Turkmenistan. Especially since the Bush administration used U.S. and Israeli military advisors to train Georgian troops and plan their ill-fated attack on the Georgian secessionist enclave South Ossetia, apparently as part of the deal for Georgian deployment of troops in Iraq. This failed operation reinforcing EU concerns about Bush’s incompetence and recklessness.
Evidence of increasing resistance to the right-wing AIPAC‘s dominance within the Israel Lobby can be found in the emergence of an alternative, the pro-peace, pro-Israel J Street Lobby that opposes a war with Iran and calls for Israel’s withdrawal from the Occupied Territories as part of regional peace agreement. Thoughtful and informed critics of current Israeli policies, such as Daniel Levy, are becoming a more significant factor in the exchange of ideas about policy alternatives open to the U.S. and Israel. A recently reported poll among American Jews indicating diminished support for Senator Lieberman (I-Conn), a leading war advocate increasingly seen as advancing extremist right-wing Israeli interests in the Middle East for which no sacrifice of blood and treasure by the U.S. seems too great. Influential critics within Israel, such as Martin van Creveld, professor at Hebrew University in Jerusalem and expert on military strategy, are speaking out against an attack on Iran by either the U.S. or Israel.
Israeli Government and Israel Lobby Press for U.S. – Iran War
Given wide opposition to an attack on Iran, why is it being considered at all?
Apart from whatever inclinations Bush/Cheney may harbor to attack Iran, the main advocacy appears to be a coordinated effort by both the Israeli government and its Israel Lobby in the U.S. to maneuver the U.S. into a war with Iran.
Israel sees a U.S. – Iran war strengthening its grip on the Occupied Territories by weakening Iran, whatever its costs to the U.S.. Most fundamentally because Iran is the critical source of support for those forces most effectively challenging Israel’s regional territorial ambitions: Hezbollah in southern Lebanon; Syria on the Galan Heights; and most especially, Hamas’ resistance to occupation and incremental annexation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem as well as to the maintenance, with Egypt, of the Gaza Strip as essentially the world’s largest prison/concentration camp. By contrast, Iranian’s nuclear program is a more distant concern, but a far more acceptable pretext for war than territorial expansion. It would not do for Israel and its lobby to demand U.S. blood and treasure to make the West Bank safer for Israeli “settlements” or to tap the waters of the Litani River in Lebanon.
Israel’s war provoking effort appears to be divided into two major elements: a U.S. domestic political campaign; and, Israeli military and intelligence programs:
Israel’s U.S. domestic campaign’s most conspicuous component is the Israel Lobby effort, led by AIPAC, introducing on May 22, 2008 concurrent resolutions (H. Con. Res. 362 and S. Res. 580) in both houses of the U.S. Congress, calling on the Bush administration to take certain actions against Iran. Despite a massive lobbying effort and wide nominal congressional support, with 220 co-sponsors in the House and 32 in the Senate, the resolution may have been a tactical blunder, because it over-reached in two critical areas:
Some of the resolution’s whereas assertions have been widely discredited as being false; and,
A provision calling for the U.S. to enforce an embargo against Iran is, in the opinion of many, a virtual declaration of war by the U.S. on Iran.
So, despite a near blackout in corporate media reporting about this resolution and it being advanced under rules reserved for “non-controversial” matters in the House by Speaker Pelosi, the resolution has come under increasing criticism. As a consequence, some of its most influential sponsors have withdrawn their support. In addition, there is a concomitant effort led by Lieberman to build grass roots political support for a U.S. war with Iran, using such allies as Pastor John Hagee, a “leading right-wing Christian Zionist”.
The Israeli military and intelligence programs, publicly centered around preparations for an attack on Iran, appear to be designed to augment Israel’s pressure on the U.S. to attack Iran instead as well as to cover secret preparations for a possible false flag attack on U.S. interests by Israel to be blamed on Iran. The clear intent is to provoke an immediate shooting war between the U.S. and Iran.
An attack on Iran by Israel itself is unlikely, because it would have limited impact on Iran’s nuclear program, military forces, and national infrastructure, while potentially resulting in substantial Israeli naval and air force losses, and therefore ultimately threatening Israel’s political establishment. Clearly, Israel wants to avoid war against its most substantial opponents, Egypt or Iran, when its current territorial interests can be satisfied by attacking its immediate, less capable abutters Lebanon and Syria, especially if Iran is less able to assist them. Given increasing U.S. military resistance to Israel’s efforts as well as many elements among the U.S. political and economic establishment opposing a U.S. war with Iran, a false flag attack on U.S. interests may be Israel’s last, best hope; however, the risks of such an attack, should it be exposed, would create difficulties that even the Israel Lobby would find difficult to contain.
Given Israel’s and the Israel Lobby’s central role in, and success at, helping start Bush’s Iraq War, this effort to start a U.S. – Iran War is considered among the most serious threats to U.S. national security by those who believe such a war both gravely dangerous and manifestly contrary to U.S. national interests.
Likely Future Events
Whether the U.S. will become involved in war with Iran is unclear. What is likely is a set of events or non-events over the next few weeks, indicating the current intensions of the Bush administration and Israeli governments toward Iran and each other.
So what might happen? It seems likely that if Bush is going to start a war with Iran, one would expect the ramp-up PR effort and accompanying threats shortly after the end of August, beginning with complaints about “diplomacy not working”, followed by new “evidence” of Iranian nuclear weapons development and perhaps an Iranian hand in killing American troops in Iraq, then building to “final warnings” as well as “last chances to come clean” etc., before hostilities in October. There may be a naval confrontation and some other casus belli, real or contrived. This timing would give McCain the best possible advantage from the bounce expected when the shooting first starts, especially if Obama is blamed for Iran’s supposed intransigency. If McCain looks to win, then Bush may wait until after the election to strike; if Obama is ahead or the race is too close to predict, then Bush may strike before the election in the hopes of changing McCain’s fortunes.
Among possible war-starting event sequences, would be a limited U.S. attack on Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps facilities near the Iraq border, followed by an Israeli false flag attack on a U.S. vessel, with Bush administration turning a blind eye to evidence of Israeli evolvement, possibly ignoring warnings about such an attack, and then ordering wider ranging attacks on Iran in “defense” of U.S. forces, resulting in a rapid series of escalating military exchanges between the U.S. and Iran.
An early indication of such a new PR effort came from Secretary of State Rice, a leading Iraq war advocate. After the U.S. attended a much publicized, single meeting with Iran, Rice charged Iran was not serious, when attending Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs William Burns, under her orders, was to say nothing to the Iranian delegation. This ludicrous claim about failed diplomacy is not a good sign. Neither is evidence of a continued build-up of U.S. naval forces in theater. Despite its reputation for secrecy, the Bush administration is much like a giant transparent clock-work, whose movements are often apparent.
If this pre-war event sequence begins to develop, then there may be additional push-back from military-corporate interests against a war with Iran, which would manifest itself in Congress and the corporate media. However, barring highly unlikely multiple resignations at the highest command levels, military objections would be very dependent on support from the U.S. Congress, which is not expected to play any significant role in the decision to go to war. Whatever reluctance the U.S. Congress might manage in the face of current Israel Lobby demands for passage of its war starting resolution, congressional Democratic leadership would likely bow immediately to Bush administration requests for a “show” of support once a confrontation with Iran develops. This is especially true if the Democratic leadership sensed that failing to go along would present any risk to its immediate election prospects, easily triggered by even a hint of criticism from Republicans. Such a show of support would likely be similar to the Iraq War resolution, which the Bush administration could claim, while unneeded, supports military action, and the Democrats could later deny intending to do so, should the war’s consequences be as disastrous as many expect.
So, from the Bush administration’s likely perspective, it would be best that a crisis and demands for congressional support occur before the election, with the timing of the attack before or after the election, based in part on McCain’s fortunes as the election nears. Bush is able to control the timing, provided Israel does not attack or otherwise provoke a conflict, because, as in the U.S. invasion of Iraq, a U.S. – Iran war would be a war of choice, decided by the U.S.. In the new American Homeland, all is a matter of the will of the imperial decider.
On the other hand, should the Bush administration not attack Iran, then chances of war between the U.S. and Iran would be greatly reduced, whether McCain or Obama is elected.
***
Please Contact Us with comments at: Comments, especially if you have information that contradicts our data or assessments.
Copyright © 2008 William H. White All rights are reserved; except, permission is granted for anyone to copy and distribute this document on the WEB. ~ The author asks that links in the text be retained.
see
Will the US Congress ratify the Bush Administration’s Decision to launch a War on Iran (H. CON. RES. 362)
Hersh: Congress Agreed to Bush Request to Fund Major Escalation in Secret Operations Against Iran
Preparing the Battlefield by Seymour M. Hersh
Mullen warns against USS Liberty redux
Seymour Hersh: The secret war in Iran
Gareth Porter: Resolution calls for embargo against Iran
U.S. puts brakes on Israeli plan for attack on Iran nuclear facilities
Iran War: Armada of US and allied naval battle groups head for the Persian Gulf
Massive US Naval Armada Heads For Iran
U.S. Armada En Route to the Persian Gulf: “Naval Blockade” or All Out War Against Iran?
War with Iran – On, Off or Undecided? by Stephen Lendman
by Stephen Lendman
Global Research, August 7, 2008
There’s good news and bad, mostly the latter but don’t discount the good. On May 22, (non-binding) HR 362 was introduced in the House – with charges and proposals so outlandish that if passed and implemented will be a blockade and act of war. It accused Iran of:
— pursuing “nuclear weapons and regional hegemony” that threatens international peace and America’s national security interests;
— overtly sponsoring “several terrorist groups, including Hamas and Hezbollah;”
— having close ties to Syria;
— possibly sharing “its nuclear materials and technology with others;”
— developing “ballistic technology” and ICBMs exclusively to deliver nuclear weapons;
— calling for the “destruction of Israel;”
— refusing to suspend its uranium enrichment program despite its legality;
— using its banking system to support proliferation and terrorist groups;
— supporting Hezbollah to dominate Lebanon and wage war on its government (of which Hezbollah is part);
— helping Hamas “illegally seize control of Gaza” (and) continuously bombard Israeli civilians with rockets and mortars;”
— financing Iraqi “Shia militant groups (and) Afghan warlords (to) attack American and allied forces;”
— destabilizing the Middle East “by underwriting a massive rearmament campaign by Syria;” and
— seeking regional hegemony to undermine “vital American national security interests.”
While stopping short of overtly declaring war, it proposes Congress:
— prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons “through all appropriate economic, political and diplomatic means;”
— urges the President to impose sanctions on:
(1) Iran’s Central Bank and all others supporting proliferation and terrorist groups;
(2) international banks that do business with proscribed Iranian banks;
(3) energy companies with $20 million or more investments in Iran’s oil or natural gas sectors since the 1996 Iran Sanctions Act; and
(4) all companies doing business with Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard.
It further:
— demands that the President prohibit export of all refined oil products to Iran; impose “stringent inspection requirements” on everything entering and departing the country, including international movement of its officials;
— aims to deny foreign investors greater access to Iran’s economy and give US companies preferential treatment if and when sanctions are lifted; and
— enlists regional support against Iran and makes clear that America will protect its “vital national security interests in the Middle East,” implying by war if necessary.
Sanctions As A Form of War
Under the UN Charter’s Article 41, the Security Council (SC) may impose economic sanctions to deter (as Article 39 states) “any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression.” Specific measures “may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations.” Prior to imposition, however, the SC should determine if they’re warranted, “call upon the parties concerned to comply with such provisional measures,” make appropriate recommendations, and decide which specific ones, if any, to use short of armed force.
Under appropriate circumstances, and if imposed responsibly, sanctions may be warranted and have greater impact than diplomatic protests or posturing. They’re also hugely less problematic and costly than conflict. However, when irresponsibly used, for imperial gain, or as acts of vengeance or political punishment, they become siege warfare and should be judged accordingly. Most often, US pressure is for these purposes in violation of the UN Charter’s intent and spirit. As a result, grievous harm is caused – nowhere more horrifically than in Iraq from 1990 – 2003 when around 1.5 million Iraqis died and millions more suffered tragically and needlessly.
In far less extreme form, a similar strategy is being used against Iran – with no justification whatever. Last March, after a year of deliberations, the Security Council approved SC 1803 – a third set of Iranian sanctions for refusing to suspend its legal right to enrich uranium as the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty allows. It followed two earlier rounds in July 2006 (SC 1696) demanding that Iran suspend uranium enrichment by August 31. When it refused, SC 1737 passed in December imposing limited sanctions. SC 1747 then tightened them in March 2007. It imposed a ban on arms sales and expanded a freeze on Iranian assets.
New sanctions extend the earlier ones but not as harshly as Washington wanted. Still they restrict dual-use technologies and authorize cargo inspections to and from the country suspected of carrying prohibited equipment and materials. They also tighten the monitoring of Iranian financial institutions and extend travel bans and asset freezes against persons and companies involved in Iran’s nuclear program.
On August 5, AP reported that Germany and the SC’s five permanent members (the so-called P5 + 1) “agreed yesterday to ‘seek’ new sanctions against Iran over its nuclear program after the country failed to meet a weekend deadline to respond to an offer” discussed below. Its source is US State Department spokesman Gonzalo Gallegos saying “we have no choice but to pursue further measures against Iran.”
Now the good news. By mid to late June, HR 362 had 169 co-sponsors. More were being added, and by August 1, 252 were on board. For a time it looked sure to pass quickly. Then anti-war groups reacted – with a tsunami of emails, phone calls, letters and visits to congressional members and their staffs. In spite of heavy AIPAC pressure for the resolution it wrote, they suspended action until the bill’s language is softened, so for now it’s stalled in committee (but not halted), and Congress is on recess until September 7 after both parties hold their conventions.
Talking Peace, Planning War
On July 16, the New York Times called Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs William Burns’ presence at the July 19 Geneva talks “the most significant diplomatic contact with Iran since” the 1979 revolution. It followed a June meeting (attended by no US representative) at which Germany and the Security Council’s five permanent members presented a package of “economic and diplomatic incentives” that failed to impress the Iranians. Predictably, neither did the July 19 meeting that ended in “deadlock” because America doesn’t “negotiate.” It demands.
In this case, the proposal offered a so-called “freeze-for-freeze” formula, with imprecise terms, under which Iran would stop enriching uranium in return for no additional sanctions for six weeks. At that point, formal negotiations would begin with no promises of concessions or compromise. Iran was given two weeks to reply. The US delegation said that Burns’ appearance was a one-time event, and by so doing revealed its deceit. For its part, Iran rejects deadlines, and its IAEA representative, Ali Asghar Soltanieh, expressed “grave concern” over America’s double standards on nuclear policy.
For the Bush administration, Iran’s nuclear program isn’t the issue. It’s mere subterfuge for what’s really at stake, but first a little background. Under Reza Shah Pahlevi, Iran undertook a nuclear program in 1957 and got a US research reactor in 1967. After the 1974 oil shock, and in spite of the country’s vast oil reserves, he established the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran to use nuclear power generation for a modern energy infrastructure that would transform the entire Middle East’s power needs. He also wanted to reduce Iran’s dependence on oil, lessen its pressure to recycle petrodollars, and ally more closely with European companies through investments.
In the 1970s, W. Germany began Iran’s Bushehr civilian reactor complex. In 1978, Iran had the world’s fourth largest nuclear program, the largest in the developing world, and planned to build 20 new reactors by 1995. That year, it contracted with Russia to complete the Bushehr project, supply it with nuclear fuel, and transfer potentially dangerous technology, including a centrifuge plant for fissile material. Washington became alarmed. It got the Yeltsin government to back out, but Iran’s efforts continued with Russia supplying nuclear fuel, and it still does.
Earlier in 2002, the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI – the opposition parliament in exile) claimed the country was pursuing a secret nuclear weapons program – including a Natanz uranium enrichment facility and an Arak heavy water one. US – Iranian confrontation followed using Iran’s nuclear program as pretext. Here’s what’s really at issue:
— Iranian sovereignty;
— its independence from US control;
— its immense proved oil reserves – third or fourth largest in the world by most estimates; also its vast proved natural gas reserves – ranked second largest in the world after Russia;
— America’s resolve to control and have veto power over them;
— Big Oil’s desire to profit from them;
— Iran’s size and location in the strategically important Middle East; its chokehold over the Strait of Hormuz through which millions of barrels of oil flow daily – about 20% of world production of around 88 million barrels;
— its strategic ties to Russia and China on energy, other commercial, and weapons deals; both countries are Iran’s largest foreign investors; Iran has vital security ties with them as well;
— these relationships’ spillover for control of Eurasia and the Caspian region’s vast oil and gas reserves through two organizations – the Asian Security Grid and more important Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) as a counterweight to an encroaching US-dominated NATO;
— its power and influence in a region the US and Israel want to dominate; and
— the immense power of the Israeli Lobby to influence US policy, including a possible war on Iran or minimally the harshest measures just short of one.
Congress On Board with the Israeli Lobby
At AIPAC’s June 2008 annual conference, most congressional members (over 300 attended), the leadership, and both parties’ presidential candidates expressed uncompromising support for Israel. They also backed harsh sanctions against Iran and even war if they prove ineffective.
For its part, AIPAC’s action agenda urged:
— stopping Iran’s nuclear program; getting Congress to pass HR 362 and the Senate’s equivalent SR 580; “calling on the administration to focus on the urgency of the Iranian threat and to impose tougher sanctions on Tehran;”
— urging the Senate to pass the Iran Counter-Proliferation Act of 2007 (S.970) – “to enhance United States diplomatic efforts with respect to Iran by imposing additional economic sanctions against Iran, and for other purposes;” on September 25, 2007, it passed the House overwhelmingly; the Senate Finance and Banking Committees passed key provisions of the Senate version in two Iran sanctions bills;
— supporting the Iran Sanctions Enabling Act of 2007 (HR 2347) that “authorize(s) State and local governments to direct divestiture from, and prevent investment in, companies with investments of $20,000,000 or more in Iran’s energy sector;” and
— urging additional aid for Israel as the president requested, “support(ing) Israel’s quest for peace, (and) press(ing) the Arab states to do more to support Israeli-Palestinian talks.”
An earlier August 14, 2007 AIPAC “Issue Brief” is titled “Iran’s Support for Terrorism.” It claims that:
— “the radical regime in Iran has sponsored terrorism against the United States, Israel and the West for decades;”
— the State Department designates Iran “the world’s leading state sponsor of terror, noting its support for groups such as Hamas, ‘Hizballah’ and Islamic Jihad;”
— Tehran also sponsors the “insurgency in Iraq, supplied arms to the Taliban and hosted al-Qaeda terrorists;”
— it also “relentlessly pursu(es) nuclear weapons (and thus is) a particularly implacable and lethal regime;” and
— “only a sustained, unified international effort to isolate and sanction Iran is likely to convince it to give up these dangerous activities.”
The Bush administration agrees. So do most members of Congress, the leadership, and both parties’ presumptive presidential candidates in speeches at the June AIPAC conference. Obama oozed obeisance – “speaking from the heart as a true friend of Israel….when I visit with AIPAC, I am among friends. Good friends….who share my strong commitment (that) the bond between the United States and Israel is unbreakable today, tomorrow, and forever.” Though far less eloquent, McCain was equally supportive.
Obama assured attendees that he stands “by Israel in the face of all threats..speak(s) up when Israel’s security is at risk (and voices concern that) America’s recent foreign policy (hasn’t) made Israel more secure. Hamas now controls Gaza. Hizbollah has tightened its grip on southern Lebanon, and is flexing its muscles in Beirut. Because of the war in Iraq, Iran – which always posed a greater threat to Israel than Iraq – is emboldened and poses the greatest strategic challenge to the US and Israel in the Middle East in a generation….We must isolate Hamas….Syria continues its support for terror and meddling in Lebanon (and) pursu(es) weapons of mass destruction….There is no greater threat to Israel – or to the peace and stability of the region – than Iran. (It) supports violent extremists….pursues a nuclear capability….and threatens to wipe Israel off the map….my goal will be to eliminate this threat.”
AIPAC attendees loved it and his receptivity to attacking Iran. McCain’s comments no less plus his bad humor earlier in singing “bomb, bomb Iran” to the tune of a popular song on a May campaign stop. At AIPAC, he was just as supportive as Obama, wants increased military aid for Israel in FY 2009, and “foremost in (his mind) is the threat posed by the regime in Tehran….The Iranian President calls Israel a stinking corpse….it uses violence to undermine Israel in the Middle East peace process….(it supports) extremists in Iraq (killing) American soldiers….remains the world’s chief sponsor of terrorism….(and its) pursuit of nuclear weapons poses an unacceptable risk, a danger we cannot allow” with clear implications of what he means and what he may do as president.
Christians United for Israel (CUFI) on the “Iranian Threat”
Along with the Israeli Lobby, Bush neocons, and most Washington officials, Christian extremists from organizations like CUFI cite the “Iranian threat” as a recurrent theme, the country’s hostility to Israel and desire to “eliminate” the Jewish state, the danger it may do so if it acquires nuclear weapons, and the need to confront Iran preemptively – through sanctions, isolation and war if other measures fail.
Controversial Pastor and John McCain supporter John Hagee is its founder and national chairman, and his influence is considerable. He has 18,000 supporters in his San Antonio Cornerstone Church and far more through CUFI and his global television ministry. His ideology is chilling, and as the most powerful and influential American Christian Zionist, he’s a man to be reckoned with. He calls Muslims “Islamic fascists,” claims they’re at war with western civilization, and believes preemptive countermeasures, including belligerent ones against Iran, are a proper defense.
As keynote speaker at AIPAC’s 2007 conference, he called Iran “the most dangerous regime in the Middle East (characterized by its) cruel despotism (and) fanatic militancy. If this regime (acquires) nuclear weapons this would presage catastrophic consequences not only for my country, not only for the Middle East, but for all of mankind….The fact that Iran is building nuclear weapons is beyond question….and they may be the world’s first ‘un-deterable’ nuclear power….So the danger is clear and the question is what do we do about it…My message to you is….divest Iran,” impose sanctions, isolate the country, and if these measures fail choose a “second course,” the other two being “nothing” or “non-military action.” From his rhetoric at AIPAC and fundamentalist preaching to his followers, it’s clear which one Hagee prefers and may get if enough others in high places share his views.
Israeli Defense Minister and former Labor Prime Minister Ehud Barak may one of them. On July 30, he told top US officials that Israel won’t rule out a military strike against Iraq, but there’s still time to pursue diplomacy. Like other Israeli officials (past and present), he stressed Iran’s global threat so that for Israel “no option would be removed from the table.”
Israeli Deputy Defense Minister (and possible next Prime Minister) Shaul Mofaz stated similar views. In an August 1 speech to the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (a pro-Israeli think tank), he called Iran an existential threat, recommended diplomacy first, then added “all options are on the table” to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons – “as soon as 2010” as some in Israel claim.
Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni (and Mofaz rival for Prime Minister) may be one of them. On CNN August 3, she called for a fourth round of sanctions against Iran and urged the world community to support them. “Iran doesn’t pay attention to talks,” she said, and “time is of the essence.” On the same day, US spokesperson for the US’s UN mission, Richard Grenell, (in a Reuters report) voiced the same view in saying “Iran has not complied with the international community’s demand to stop enriching uranium (so) the Security Council (has) no choice but to increase the sanctions….”
High Level US Opposition to War on Iran
Key Obama foreign policy advisor and former Carter administration National Security Advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski, is one of them. In a Washington Post March 2008 op-ed, he called the Iraq war a “national tragedy, (demagogically justified), an economic catastrophe, a regional disaster, and a global boomerang for the United States.” Earlier in February 2007, in testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, he said it was “a historic, strategic, and moral calamity. Undertaken under false assumptions, it is undermining America’s global legitimacy….tarnishing (our) moral credentials (and) intensifying regional instability.”
He then laid out a “plausible scenario for a military collision with Iran (based on) Iraqi failure to meet the benchmarks, followed by accusations of Iranian responsibility for the failure, then by some provocation in Iraq or a terrorist act in the US blamed on Iran, culminating in a ‘defensive’ US military action” in response. This would plunge “a lonely America into a spreading and deepening quagmire eventually ranging across Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan.” Brzezinski’s remarks were an unmistakable warning that the Bush administration may try to stampede the country into a calamitous conflict it must avoid, and it’s up to Congress to stop it. He also practically called Bush neocons a cabal and warned Congress to be alert.
Later last September, Brzezinski repeated the same warning on CNN – that the Bush administration (Bush and Cheney mainly) is “hyp(ing) the atmosphere (and) “stampeding” the country to war with Iran. “When the president flatly asserts (Iran is) seeking nuclear weapons, he’s overstating the facts….we have very scant (supportive) evidence (and after the Iraq calamity he) should be very careful about the veracity of his public assertions.” Based on his own experience in Afghanistan in the 1980s, he’s also very leery about “running the (same) risk of unintentionally” falling into Russia’s trap – overreaching, paying “little regard for civilian casualties,” turning Afghans against us, and being defeated and forced out of the country.
Brzezinski supports a less confrontational occupation and had this to say about a McCain administration: “if his Secretary of State is Joe Lieberman and his Secretary of Defense is (Rudy) Giuliani, we will be moving towards the WW IV (counting the Cold War as WW III) that they have been both favoring and predicting….an appalling concept” he says must be avoided.
It will be if global intelligence company Stratfor founder and head George Friedman is right. In an August 4 Barrons interview (reported on Iran’s Press TV), he called Israeli war games and tough US talk geopolitical head-fake leading to an “amicable endgame in Iran.” Why? Because given today’s global economy, the alternative risks far outweigh potential benefits. Besides, Iran poses at most a “negligible nuclear threat” and nowhere near reason enough to go to war over.
Further, Iran has helped reduce sectarian violence in Iraq by reigning in Shia militias, and that’s a key reason for lower US casualties. Barrons noted that Stratfor has a record of making accurate assessments and gained a large client base as a result. Friedman believes the US and Israel are using psychological warfare to intimidate Iran to make it more accommodative to their policies. He also says a major attack would have grave repercussions for the global economy at a time when it’s most vulnerable. Iran’s potential retaliatory strength might cripple a sizable amount of world oil trade, cause prices to skyrocket, and exacerbate an already shaky situation at the worst time.
He says the Pentagon has war-gamed an attack, and believes it can make short work of Iran’s shore-based missile batteries and attack ships. De-mining operations would take much longer. In the meantime, oil prices could hit $300 a barrel, shipping insurance and tanker lease rates would soar, and economic stability would collapse. In the near-term, it would be “cataclysmic to the global economy and stock market.”
Up to now, two years of talks on Iran’s nuclear program have been more “Kabuki theater” than a real effort at serious negotiation. In addition, Friedman says Iran is “decades away” from developing a credible nuclear weapons capacity even if it intends to pursue one. At best, in his judgment, it may be able to come up with a crude device like the North Koreans managed and apparently tested in 2006. No reason to go to war over if he’s right and one among many more vital issues that influential American figures cite to oppose one.
Pentagon Crosscurrents on Iran
In late June, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman, Michael Mullen, visited Israel – his second trip there since his October 1 appointment, but this time with a clear (official US) message according to defense analyst and former Pentagon official Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). It was that “the US did not give the green light for an Israeli attack on Iran….George Bush made it clear to all parties that the first option is diplomacy,” and no attack should be undertaken without White House approval. Mullen further suggested that US policy likely will remain unchanged under George Bush, and that future plans will be up to the next incumbent – a strong hint that cooler high-level Washington figures know the folly of a wider Middle East war and want no part of one.
Nonetheless, there’s no assurance they’ll win out, and analyst Michael Oren of the Shalem Centre told CBS News that Bush administration officials assured Israelis that Iran wouldn’t be allowed to develop a nuclear weapons capacity with strong hints of an attack if one continues. Then on March 11, CENTCOM commander William Fallon was sacked following reports that he sharply disagreed with Bush administration Middle East policy. On April 24 Iraq commander, and noted super-hawk, David Petraeus was named to replace him, and following an easy Senate confirmation will take over in September.
In June 2007, another change of command occurred when George Bush replaced Joint Chiefs Chairman Peter Pace because of his public disagreement over policy. On February 17, 2006 at a National Press Club luncheon, he responded to a question: “It is the absolute responsibility of everybody in uniform to disobey an order that is either illegal or immoral.” He later added that commanders should “not obey illegal and immoral orders to use weapons of mass destruction….They cannot commit crimes against humanity.” Nor should they go along with wrong-headed illegal schemes of remaking the Middle East and other regions militarily, but until Admiral Mullen’s comments to Israelis it looked like a compliant Pentagon team was in place to pursue it.
Whatever’s ahead, it appears high-level opposition figures have surfaced with practical (past and present) trilateralists among them. Figures like Brzezinski, Jim Baker, Henry Kissinger, George Tenet, Paul Volker, Jimmy Carter, George Soros, David Rockefeller, many other top business executives, and even GHW Bush. Their concern over present policy is having an effect, but there’s no certainty about which side will prevail. However, with Congress out until September, things are on hold, and time is fast running out on a lamer-than-lame duck administration, according to some.
Even The New York Times is sending mixed messages it will have to clarify in coming weeks. In a June 10 editorial, it said: “If sanctions and incentives cannot be made to work, the voices for military action will only get louder. No matter what aides may be telling Mr. Bush and Mr. Olmert – or what they may be telling each other – an attack on Iran would be a disaster,” implying it’s wrong, won’t work and will devastate the economy. Then on July 18, it then gave Israeli historian and apologist Benny Morris op-ed space for a vicious and Orwellian headlined diatribe: “Using Bombs to Stave Off War.”
In it, he states “Israel will almost surely attack Iran’s nuclear sites in the next four to seven months (conventionally).” Should that “assault fail to significantly harm or stall the Iranian program….a nuclear (attack) will most likely follow.” The world has “only one option if it wishes to halt Iran’s march toward nuclear weaponry: the military” one by “either the United States or Israel.” But America is bogged down in two wars, and “the American public has little enthusiasm” for more.
“Which leaves only Israel – the country threatened almost daily with destruction by Iran’s leaders….Iran’s leaders would do well to rethink their gamble and suspend their nuclear program.” Otherwise, an Israeli attack “will destroy their nuclear facilities (even though) this would mean thousands of Iranian casualties and international humiliation.”
It’s high time The New York Times (and other major media voices) took a stand. Is it opposed to further regional conflict, or in James Petras’ words: is it for “the nuclear incineration of 70 million Iranians and the contamination of the better part of a billion people in the Middle East, Asia and Europe” plus an unimaginable amount of retaliatory fallout with the entire Muslim world against the West and Israel.
Yet a June 2008 Presidential Task Force on the Future of US-Israeli Relations statement calls for “Cooperation on the Iranian Nuclear Challenge” and to consider “coercive options” against it, including embargoing Iranian oil and “preventive military action.” It was at the time Haaretz reported that Israel conducted large-scale exercises (focusing on long-range strikes) “that appeared to be a rehearsal for a potential bombing attack” on Iran. Statfor’s George Friedman downplayed them, called them “psychological warfare” saber-rattling, not preparations for war, and why would Israel telegraph plans if that’s what it has in mind. In 1981, it gave no hint it intended to bomb Iraq’s Osirak reactor, and when it came it was a surprise.
Other Crosscurrents
For brief moments earlier, positive developments surfaced, only to be swept aside by a torrent of anti-Iranian hostility. The Baker Commission December 2006 report recommended engaging Iran and Syria “constructively” and called for a “New Diplomatic Offensive without preconditions,” all for naught. Then last December the National Intelligence Assessment (representing the consensus of all 16 US spy agencies) concluded that Iran “halted” its nuclear weapons program in 2003, and it remains frozen, again without effect.
At the same time, battle plans are in place under code name TIRRANT for Theater Iran Near Term. And under a top secret “Interim Global Strike Alert Order” and CONPLAN (contingency/concept plan) 8022, Washington may preemptively strike targets anywhere in the world using so-called low-yield extremely powerful nuclear bunker buster weapons. Iran is the apparent first target of choice, and US Naval carrier strike groups are strategically positioned in the Persian Gulf and Mediterranean to proceed on command.
A recent May World Tribune report cited a second carrier group in the Gulf and secret (approved but not implemented) US naval and air plans for an Iran “counterstrike” in response to “escalating tensions that would peak with an Iranian-inspired insurgency strike against US” forces – that might easily be another Gulf of Tonkin-type incident. So the question remains, are we heading for war or is it just “head-fake” as George Friedman believes?
Sy Hersh On “Preparing the Battlefield”
On June 29 in the New Yorker magazine, Hersh reported more crosscurrents and added to what’s covered above. On the one hand, Congress will fund “a major escalation of covert operations against Iran,” according to his high-level sources. As much as $400 million will go to minority Ahwazi Arab and Baluchi dissident groups, to “destabilize the country’s religious leadership,” aim for regime change, and gain intelligence on Iran’s “suspected nuclear-weapons program.”
The plan apparently involves stepped up covert CIA and Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) operations authorized by a highly classified Presidential Finding about which some congressional leaders have little knowledge and have voiced concern. By law, party leaders and ranking intelligence committee members must be briefed, but apparently it’s been done selectively.
On the other hand, Hersh says Pentagon military and civilian leaders are concerned about “Iran’s nuclear ambitions,” but disagree “whether a military strike is the right solution.” Some oppose one, want diplomacy instead, and apparently Robert Gates is one of them – a former Iraq Study Group member until he became Secretary of Defense in December 2006. In late 2007, he apparently warned the Democrat Senate caucus of grave consequences if the Bush administration preemptively attacked Iran – saying it would create “generations of jihadists, and our grandchildren will be battling (them) in America.”
Admiral Mullen also is “pushing back very hard” against an attack along with “at least ten senior flag and general officers, including combatant commanders” in charge of military operations around the world. One of them is Admiral Fallon who lost his CENTCOM job for opposing an attack even though he agrees on Iran’s possible threat.
Looking Ahead
More good news for what it’s worth. On August 2, tens of thousands across the US and Canada protested against a possible attack on Iran. On the bad side, unprecedented numbers, in vain, did as well ahead of the Iraq war, but this time influential Washington figures support them.
With Congress on recess, it’s too soon to know what’s ahead, but one thing’s for sure. Neocons still run things. Dick Cheney leads them, and he claims Iran intends to destroy Israel, is developing nuclear weapons, and is a “darkening cloud….right at the top of the list” of world trouble spots and needs to be addressed (along with Syria) as the next phase of “the road map to war.” With five months to go and heavy firepower to call on, he and George Bush have plenty of time left (as this writer said earlier) to incinerate Iran and end the republic if that’s what they have in mind. Better hope they don’t or that cooler heads win out for a different way.
Stephen Lendman is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization. He lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.
Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to The Global Research News Hour on RepublicBroadcasting.org Mondays from 11AM – 1PM US Central time for cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests. All programs are archived for easy listening.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9724
© Copyright Stephen Lendman, Global Research, 2008
The url address of this article is: www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9762
see
A Vote For Military Force Against Iran? AIPAC’s House Resolution, H. Con. Res. 362
HR 362 and the Alarming Escalation of Hostility Towards Iran
Iran always ready for dialogue
Kucinich: Mindless threats imperil millions + Oil companies’ influence over govt
“Neocon Flap Highlights Jewish Divide” By Alan Hart
Dandelion Salad
By Alan Hart
06/08/08 “ICH”
That was the headline over a splendid piece of reporting for IPS (Inter Press Service) published on 30 July by Daniel Luban and Jim Lobe. They concluded that “new political space is being created for the public airing of more moderate views on Middle East policy.” If they are right, and I think they are, there is reason, at last, to be less than totally pessimistic about the prospects of finding a cure for the cancer at the heart of international affairs, the Palestine problem, before it consumes us all.
In the quotation above “more moderate views” is a euphemism for views other than those of the Zionist (not Jewish!) lobby, of which AIPAC is the most prominent public face. It was described by Luban and Lobe as “the powerful lobbying group whose hawkish right-wing leadership has often defied both the views of the broader U.S. .Jewish community and the policies of Israeli governments.” (In my two-volume book, Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews, I quote Shimon Peres telling me way back in 1980, when he was the leader of the opposition Labour Party, that the lobby in America “is not an Israel lobby. It’s a Likud lobby and that’s my problem.”)
The excellent IPS article by Luban and Lobe is primarily a review of the controversy sparked by TIME columnist Joe Klein’s blogged statement that by pushing for war on Iraq and now for a “foolish assault on Iran”, Jewish neo-conversatives had caused the question of “divided loyalties” to be asked – because what Jewish neo-conservatives pushed and are pushing for is not in America’s own best interests. (As Mearsheimer and Walt argued in great detail).
Klein was accused by the usual cast of those who support Israel right or wrong of being anti-Semitic; but he refused to back down, accusing his accusers of using charges of anti-Semitism to silence his and other criticism of neo-conservative policies. Klein said those who called him anti-Semitic were wrong. What then was he? “I am anti neo-conversative,” he told Luban and Lobe.
In the same article they quote MJ. Rosenberg, a former AIPAC staffer now associated with the moderate Israel Policy Forum, as saying, “Although most neocons are Jews, few Jews are neocons.” That is undoubtedly so, which is a tribute to the effectiveness of the few who are. Luban and Lobe also quote Rosenburg as expressing the hope that commentators would “stop equating neo-conservatism with Judaism.” (My emphasis added).
Indeed they should, but there is a much bigger and related imperative. As I never tire of writing and saying, commentators should stop equating Zionism with Judaism. The difference between the two, why they are total opposites, is THE key to understanding who must do what and why for justice and peace in the Middle East.
For those who are not familiar with the matter, I must add that I am, of course, aware that there are two kinds of Zionism – one purely spiritual, the other political. In the sense that religious Jews look to Jerusalem as their spiritual home, it can be said that all religious Jews are spiritual Zionists. The Zionism that should not be equated with Judaism is political Zionism. And why is not all that complicated.
Judaism is the religion of Jews, not “the” Jews because not all Jews are religious. Like Chistianity and Islam, Judaism has at its core a set or moral values and ethical principles.
Political Zionism is a sectarian, colonial ideology which created in the Arab heartland, mainly by terrorism and ethnic cleansing, a state for some Jews. Simply put, political Zionism made a mockey of, and has contempt for, Judaism’s moral values and ethical prnciples.
Political Zionism’s own ethic was set down in writing by Vladimir Jabotsinky, the founding father of Israel’s army. He was a Russian Jew born in Odessa in 1880. In 1923, years before Adolf Hitler came to power, he published The Iron Wall, which became the main inspirational text for all Jewish nationalists who committed themselves to Zionism’s colonial enterprise. Its purpose was to take for keeping the maximum amount of Arab land with the minimum number of Arabs on it. In The Iron Wall, Jabotinsky was brutally frank about what Zionism’s ethic had to be. He wrote this (my emphasis added):
“Zionism is a colonizing adventure and therefore it stands or falls by the question of armed force. There is no other ethic. It is important to speak Hebrew but, unfortunately, it is even more important to be able to shoot- or else I am through with playing at colonization. To the hackneyed reproach that this point of view is unethical, I answer – absolutely untrue. As long as there is the faintest spark of hope for the Arabs to impede us, they will not sell these hopes – not for any tasty morsel because this is not a rabble but a people, a living people. And no people makes such enormous concessions on such fateful questions, except when there is no hope left, until we have removed every opening visible in the Iron Wall.”
In the light of subsequent events including the obscenity of the Nazi holocaust, an honest, up-to-date statement of what political Zionism is really all about would be something like the following:
“Jews can never again trust Gentiles. If the Gentile world cannot understand why the Zionist state of Israel must do what it’s doing to hold and keep what it has (most if not all of it), the Gentile world can go to hell.”
In private conversation I once asked Israel’s one-eyed warlord, General Moshe Dayan, the creator in 1967 of Greater Israel, why it had nuclear weapons when, I said, we both knew it didn’t need them vis-à-vis the Arabs. He replied to this effect: “Ben Gurion wasn’t stupid, I’m not stupid. We know how the real world works. We took it as read that a day will come when even our best friends will say to us, ‘You’ve become a liability and to protect our own best interests we want you to do this.'” The obvious implication, which Dayan knew he didn’t have to put into words for me, was that if ever a day came when America required Israel to do what it did not consider to be in its own best interests, an Israeli leader would say something very like, “Mr. President, don’t push as further than we are prapared to go because, if we must, we’ll use all the weapons at our disposal.” Simply stated, Israel went nuclear in order to possess the ultimate in blackmail cards. At about the time Dayan said that to me, Prime Minister Golda Meir also told me, on-the-record during the course of an interview I did with her for the BBC’s Panorama programme, that in a doomsday situation Israel would be prepared to take the region and the whole world down with it. (Her full quote with its context is as set down on page xii of Waiting for the Apocalypse, the Prologue to Volume One of Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews).
Question: Why, really, is it so important for the citizens of the mainly Gentile nations of the Judeo-Christian or Western world to be made aware of the difference between Judaism and political Zionism?
The answer is in two related parts.
One is that knowledge of the difference is the key to understanding why it is perfectly possible to be passionately anti-Zionist (opposed to Zionism’s still on-going colonial enterprise) without being in any way, shape or form anti-Semitic (meaning anti-Jew because Arabs are Semites, too).
The other is that knowledge of the difference explains why it is wrong to blame all Jews everywhere, or even all Israelis, for the crimes of the hardest core Zionist few in Palestine that became Israel. (It is a fact that prior to the obscenity of the Nazi holocaust, many if not most Jews everywhere were opposed to Zionism’s colonial enterprise. They believed it to be morally wrong and they feared it would lead to unending conflict. Some also feared that there could come a day when Zionism, if it was allowed by the major powers to have its way, would provoke anti-Semitism).
Alan Hart – Visit his blog http://alanhartdiary.blogspot.com
FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. This constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
Dandelion Salad 