| Author | Message | | Alpha | | Posted: Sun Mar 22, 2009 8:57 pm Post subject: Obama, the Lobby, and a War on Iran |
| Obama, the Lobby, and a War on Iran
Sunday, March 22, 2009 10:37 AM
From: "Stephen Sniegoski"
Friends,
Obama, the Lobby, and a War on Iran
I had an article published in Antiwar.com [http://www.antiwar.com/orig/sniegoski.php?articleid=14434 ] which follows this message. It deals with the topic that I have been discussing in a number of my recent mailings—the likelihood of the Obama administration launching an attack on Iran.
However, I would like to add in this message that I do not consider Obama to be a tool of the Israel Lobby. I maintain that Obama would go to war with Iran for his own reasons. Moreover, his goals are different from those of the Israel Lobby. . Strengthened by a victory over Iran, Obama would have the political capital to take on the Lobby in an effort to change the world in a positive direction. I consider Obama’s policies to combine a cautious political pragmatism (seeking the support of powerful groups—Wall St. and the Israel Lobby) with a quasi-messianic idealistic desire to change the US and the world.
Certainly, the Obama administration is now taking what seems to be a more conciliatory position on Iran. But as I point out in my article, Obama still makes demands on Iran without offering much of any quid pro quo. These conciliatory measures could actually serve to facilitate a war. As I write in my article : “Obama, with the image of being a man of peace, would have greater credibility with the American people in taking an aggressively hardline policy toward Iran than either Bush II or McCain. This especially would be the case after his pursuit of diplomacy, which has little chance of success without a quid pro quo to Iran. Once diplomacy breaks down, tougher measures would be portrayed as the only alternative in dealing with an allegedly intransigent foe.”
As I pointed out in my previous posting, the derailing of Chas Freeman might portend an overall effort of the Israel Lobby forces to takeover of US intelligence which would then disseminate war propaganda masquerading as intelligence--analogous to the build-up for the war on Iraq.
None of this is intended to imply that Obama plans or wants to wage war on Iran. However, there are various factors which will push him in this direction. These include: his pro-Israel advisors, the efforts of the Israeli Lobby, pro-war intelligence, military incidents in Iran and Afghanistan, and the continued difficulties with the economy and a concomitant fall in his popularity. Moving toward a war position in such a situation would definitely have political advantages and being reared in Chicago politics, Obama would certainly seem to consider political interest in making policy decisions. As the serious economic problems continued, with no apparent solution, and as Obama’s attendant popularity waned, war would definitely be a smart political move. As I pointed out in last weeks message: “ Wars make the general populace far more willing to endure hardship than is the case during peacetime. Moreover, the war would create the political climate to allow for extreme deficit financing (by money creation) that could mitigate the economic hardship in the short-term—postponing greater economic suffering for the future. Republican criticism would virtually cease, especially because the Republicans are likely to be the most hawkish on the Iranian issue. And having the full support of the Israel Lobby would certainly bolster Obama’s media image. Furthermore, Obama’s close pro-Zionist advisors, Rahm Emanuel and David Axelrod would likely be urging him to move in a war direction, contending that it would boost his political image.”
However, although Obama definitely has political instincts, it seems that he really wants to change the world for the better. His political models, Franklin D. Roosevelt and Lincoln were presidents, who, it is conventionally believed, launched wars to improve society. And certainly his pro-Israel advisors will be reinforcing the idea that using war to prevent a rogue state such as Iran from getting a nuclear weapon is certainly a beneficial goal for the world.
In some respects, Obama could be likened to Woodrow Wilson, a once iconic president who has fallen out of the liberal pantheon in recent years because of his staunch support for racial segregation. (Liberalism and support for segregation could harmoniously coincide in the early part of the 20th century). Wilson was a fervid idealist and entered office in 1913 as a staunch opponent of war. Like Obama he entered office focused on domestic reform and he was able to enact a very significant reform agenda—e.g., Federal Reserve Act, Clayton Anti-Trust Act, Federal Trade Commission Act, Underwood Tariff (reduced the tariff),. All of these measures were considered progressive at the time even though some, if not all, actually benefitted existing powerful interests. (Federal Reserve Act)
Wilson sought to keep the US out of World War I, but due to various factors—British anti-German propaganda, advice from pro-war advisors, his own pro-British attitude—pursued a pro-British neutrality that inevitably led to war with Germany. The situation is similar today with pro-Israel anti-Iran propaganda, pro-Israel advisors and the pursuit of a Middle East policy with a definite pro-Israel tilt, demanding that Iran stop aiding Hezbollah and Hamas and cease its nuclear enrichment without offering much in return. This approach would not be acceptable to Iran, which would could be portrayed by the media as Iran’s belligerence. As I write in my article: “Once diplomacy breaks down, tougher measures would be portrayed as the only alternative in dealing with an allegedly intransigent foe.”
The idealistic Wilson envisioned himself as a peacemaker, but as the war in Europe dragged on, he began to look upon war as a vehicle to bring about a just global order.. When the US entered war, Wilson would preached an idealistic peace which became embodied in his Fourteen Points and a League of Nations. Wilson became a great idealist hero throughout the world, and the war was championed by progressives as a means of achieving a just world. (to be disillusioned by the actual peace).
Like Wilson, Obama is holds the belief that he has the power and the ability to enact significant social change. And he is pushing a very extensive reform agenda. Once the economic difficulties stymie his domestic reform agenda, however, it would seem plausible that he would turn his reform impulse to the global scene. And since Obama already enjoys immense popularity among the world’s people and even leaders, it would not be irrational for him to think that he could bring about change on the global level. Certainly, conventional liberals have believed that global solutions for peace, prosperity, and the environment are achievable by international action.
In making war on Iran, Obama’s interests would not be the same as those of the Israel Lobby. The Lobby simply wants to destroy an enemy of Israel’s and allow Israel to reign supreme in its region. Obama, however, would look to defeating Iran as the means to a better Middle East and a better global order. After defeating Iran (and if the war does not have disastrous consequences), he would have such great and deep popularity that he could reasonably believe that he would have the political capital to go against the Israel Lobby. It would seem apparent that he does not really identify with Israel—he did listen to Reverend Wright for many a year without a complaint—and probably only supports their positions for political reasons. Israel Lobby members have been suspicious of Obama.
The idea that a popular president could pressure Israel is not novel Bush I and Jim Baker thought that they could achieve this after the Gulf War in 1991 with their plans for a new world order. Their plans were ultimately destroyed by the Israel Lobby when they sought to pressure Israel on the settlements issue. Obama, of course, would have far deeper public support than Bush I, which was large but not staunch enough to prevent it from quickly evaporating.
The Israel Lobby undoubtedly knows that Obama is not their instrument and that if had the power he would go against their interests. They are probably developing contingency plans to deal with such a situation—skeletons in Obama’s closet could become headline stories. However, from the Lobby’s perspective, that is the future. At the present time, Iran is the problem and Obama is the vehicle that can advance Israel’s interests.
Of course, a war, even one that relied on solely on air attacks, could bring about such a conflagration as to destroy Obama’s presidency. For Obama, the war would have to be kept within strict limits and not bring about extreme anti-American violence in the rest of the Middle East, which could topple America’s Arab allies and greatly reduce the flow of oil, wreaking havoc with the world’s economy (though it could also provide a boost for Obama’s alternative energy program).
On the other hand, regional turmoil would be to the advantage of the Israel—at least according to the views of the Israeli Right, as I bring out in my book “The Transparent Cabal” http://home.comcast.net/~transparentcabal/
Increasing the Arab and Islamic hatred of the US would help to solidify the contention that Israel is America’s only ally in the Middle East. And such turmoil, with Middle Eastern countries and groups fighting among themselves, certainly would help to keep Israel’s enemies fragmented and weak—a traditional goal of the Israeli Right.
Stephen Sniegoski
____________________________________________________
March 21, 2009
Obama and the Neocon Middle East War Agenda
by Stephen J. Sniegoski
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/sniegoski.php?articleid=14434
Additional at the following URL:
Freeman's Demise as Prelude to War on Iran
http://tinyurl.com/d2c5ph | |  | | | ©2002-2009 WarWithoutEnd.co.uk |
