| Author | Message | | Alpha | | Posted: Thu Feb 03, 2005 7:26 am Post subject: More War for Israel Coming: Bush Warns Syria and Iran |
| More War for Israel Coming: Bush Warns Syria and Iran
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1404776,00.html
Bush warns Syria and Iran over terror
Julian Borger in Washington
Thursday February 3, 2005
The Guardian
President George Bush last night issued clear warnings to Syria and Iran that they were next in his sights in his declared mission to spread democracy around the world.
The state of the union address to Congress had been billed as reconciliatory, but, along with a series of references to alliances and international initiatives, there were some blunt words.
After recounting the fall of the Taliban in Afghanistan and Saddam Hussein in Iraq, the president said: "There are still governments that sponsor and harbour terrorists, but their numbers have declined.
"There are still regimes seeking weapons of mass destruction, but they are no longer without attention and without consequence."
The president then singled out Syria, which he said "still allows its territory and parts of Lebanon to be used by terrorists who seek to destroy every chance of peace in the region."
"We expect Syria to end all support for terrorists and open the door to freedom," he said, to heavy applause from members of Congress.
He turned to Iran, which he said "remains the world's primary sponsor of terror" and he issued a direct message to Iranians to stand up to the clerical regime in Tehran.
He said the US was working with European states to make clear to Tehran it must give up its uranium enrichment programme, but he also signalled a much broader agenda, aimed at the ultimate removal of the clerical regime itself.
He declared "to the Iranian people, I say tonight: As you stand for your own liberty, America stands with you."
He heralded the start of a "new phase" in the Iraq occupation, in the hope of shifting US military efforts from fighting the insurgency to training Iraqi troops.
However, he rejected calls for a timetable for withdrawal.
"While our military strategy is adapting to circumstances," he said. "Our commitment remains firm and unchanging."
In a clear indication Mr Bush has no intention of allowing his radical presidency to lose momentum in its second term, he used the speech to outline an ambitious agenda both at home and abroad.
It included a call to restructure the federal pension scheme to allow for private accounts, a step towards the president's ideal of an "ownership society", and a pledge to create a tax code that was "easy to understand and fair to all".
In a significant nod to his Christian conservative supporters, he vowed support for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage "for the good of families, children and society".
Mr Bush committed the US to engage diplomatically in the Middle East, claiming that a permanent peace based on independent Palestinian and Israeli states was "within reach" with US help.
"The goal of two democratic states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace is within reach - and America will help them achieve that goal," Mr Bush said.
"It's a rejection of the status quo and a call for something better," said Frank Luntz, a Republican pollster and analyst. "Like him or not, you have to acknowledge there is a Bush doctrine."
The president's speech carried echoes of the "freedom speech" he delivered a fortnight ago, but it went into specifics, laying out a blueprint for the next four years. As in his inaugural address, the president framed the Iraq invasion in terms of a broader mission to spread democracy.
"We will succeed because the Iraqi people value their own liberty - as they showed the world last Sunday," the president told a cheering chamber.
Many Republican members of Congress raised fingers that had been dipped in purple ink, emulating Iraqi voters.
"The new political situation in Iraq opens a new phase of our work in that country," the president said.
"We will increasingly focus our efforts on helping prepare more capable Iraqi security forces - forces with skilled officers and an effective command structure."
The administration hopes such forces will increasingly bear the brunt of fighting, relegating US forces increasingly to training role. However, training is so far lagging far behind expectations.
Administration officials say the White House is determined to repair some of the damage done to relations with Europe by the Iraqi invasion. Condoleezza Rice, the secretary of state, is due to arrive in Britain tonight. She is also to meet Israeli and Palestinian leaders on Monday.
The president's speech was intended to show his administration would make the most of the opportunity created by January's Palestinian elections to mount a new peace initiative.
"The goal of two democratic states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace is within reach - and America will help them achieve that goal," Mr Bush said.
That commitment would, he said, be backed up by $350m in aid to the Palestinians to support "political, economic, and security reforms" and help rebuild after the planned dismantlement of Jewish settlements in Gaza and the West Bank.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Pat Buchanan has sold us out tonight on MSNBC by not mentioning neocon once...
President Bush's 'State of the Union' speech was nothing more than Zionist ('freedom and liberty') propaganda to continue the 'A Clean Break' (war for Israel) agenda of the JINSA/CSP/PNAC Neoconservatives. James Bamford conveys the 'A Clean Break' agenda on pages 261-269 of his new book ('A Pretext for War'). Pat Buchanan conveys it in his 'Whose War?' article for the American Conservative magazine (as Buchanan conveys similar in chapter 2 of his 'Where the Right Went Wrong: How Neoconservatives Subverted the Reagan Revolution and Hijacked the Bush Presidency' book):
www.amconmag.com/03_24_03/cover.html
You can see how the Israel firster neocons are using 'liberty and freedom' to continue the 'war for Israel' agenda by accessing the 'Thinking about Neoconservatism' article (by California State Long Beach psychology professor Kevin MacDonald) via the following URL:
http://www.vdare.com/misc/macdonald_neoconservatism.htm
Just letting you know about James Bamford's new book ('A Pretext for War') which includes mention of the 'A Clean Break' agenda that Bush has followed like a template.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Confirmation of Gonzales' Role in Torture at Abu Ghraib
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2005/02/02/confirmation-of-gonzales-role-in-abu-ghraib-torture.php
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: "mer" <MER@MiddleEast.Org>
From: "MER - Mid-East Realities - MiddleEast.Org" <MERL@MiddleEast.Org>
Subject: Last Big Push on IRAN
Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2005 09:05:43 -0500
H
News, Views, & Analysis Governments, Lobbies, & the
Corporate Media Don't Want You To Know
The most honest, most comprehensive, and most mobilizing news and
analysis on the Middle East always comes from MER. It is indispensable!"
Robert Silverman - Salamanca, Spain
MER - We Never Stop Working For You!
MER - MER@MiddleEast.Org - (202) 362-5266 - Fax (815) 366-0800
4 February 2005 - MiddleEast.Org - MER is Free
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Upcoming from MIDDLEEAST.ORG
Clinton Wants to be U.N. Secretary-General
Wolfowitz Wants to be U.N. Ambassador
U.S. Wants to Make Sure U.N. is Firmly Under Control
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BIG PUSH ON IRAN
Big U.S. companies told to abandon Iran
MIDDLEEAST.ORG - MER - Washington - 4 February: If the latest super big push to frighten and/or bribe Iran into compliance with U.S. and Israeli demands doesn't work, escalated CIA and Pentagon efforts in coordination with the Israelis will proceed quickly now. As recent MER FlashBacks have reminded the planning for this goes back to the early years of the Clinton Administration when a notorious former Israeli/Jewish Lobby official was brought into the White House National Security Council to quickly proclaim that the most important U.S. policy in the Middle East was 'Dual Containment' of Iraq and Iran.
Both the Bush and the Sharon Administrations may well have understandably concluded that both their political and military windows of opportunity may not last very long now, that they may be close to their maximum power at this time, and that with Iran racing ahead to forge new alliances with China and Russia plus making understandably frantic efforts to further diversify and hide armaments, the choices and capabilities are shrinking rather than expanding. Add to the political vortex that it is best to take major actions surely to be loudly condemned by others, and which could badly amiss, while there is at least the appearance of a 'reinvigorated Middle East peace process' -- and that too in all likelihood has a very limited shelf-life.
As for the new Secretary of State's just made craftily worded comments implying the U.S. isn't about to attack Iran after all, her attempts to play the Good Cop in her new role come with a great deal of baggage far too heavy for her to carry without continually tripping and crying for help a long the way. She's already been repeatedly and irreparably tarred as the Commander-in-Chief's Liar-in- Chief; and in no less a forum than the U.S. Senate of late.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GE halts new business orders in Iran
by John Christoffersen, The Associated Press
STAMFORD, Conn. - AP -- General Electric Co., which has been accused of collecting "blood money" by doing business in Iran, will stop accepting any new orders for business in the country, company officials said Wednesday.
The move by the world's largest company by market value comes just days after another conglomerate, Halliburton Co., announced the company will wind down its operations in Iran.
"We're seeing a turnaround by a number of U.S. companies operating in Iran," said Dan Katz, chief counsel to U.S. Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J.
Katz said the moves may signal an imminent change in U.S. policy that has allowed foreign subsidiaries of American companies to do business in Iran.
Last year, Lautenberg accused GE and other American companies of collecting "blood money" by doing business with countries the United States says sponsors terrorism and said he would push for legislation to stop it. New York City comptroller William Thompson, as manager of employee pension funds, has also pressured GE and other companies.
Under current law, U.S. firms are not allowed to do business with nations deemed by the United States to sponsor terrorism. But the law does not specifically bar foreign subsidiaries from such business.
"Our business activities in Iran are fully compliant with U.S. law," said Gary Sheffer, a GE spokesman.
Lautenberg said the companies should not have been operating in Iran.
"When American companies do business with Iran they are helping the Iranians create revenue that is funneled to terrorists," Lautenberg said.
GE said it decided on the moratorium in December. The decision, which became effective Tuesday, comes amid tensions and threats of sanctions over Iran's nuclear program.
"Because of uncertain conditions related to Iran, including concerns about meeting future customer commitments, we will not accept any new orders for business in Iran effective Feb. 1," Sheffer said. "This moratorium on new orders will be re-evaluated as conditions relating to Iran change."
President Bush said last month he hoped the situation could be solved diplomatically, but he would not rule out using military force against Iran over its nuclear program, which the United States believes is aimed at producing weapons. Vice President Dick Cheney has said Iran "is right at the top of the list" of world trouble spots.
Iran has denied allegations of a secret nuclear weapons programs, saying its nuclear activities are for peaceful energy purposes.
Under international pressure, Iran suspended uranium enrichment and all related activities in November, hoping to avoid U.N. Security Council sanctions. The nation has said it will decide within three months whether to continue its suspension, which is monitored by U.N. nuclear inspectors.
GE did about $270 million in business last year in Iran, representing less than 1 percent of its revenue, Sheffer said. Through a foreign subsidiary, GE has provided hydroelectric equipment, medical equipment, and oil and gas equipment in Iran.
None of the business involves the sale of nuclear products, Sheffer said. He said it would take about a year for GE to complete its existing contracts.
Lautenberg has said he would offer a measure that would bar any firm controlled over 50 percent by an American parent company from doing business with terror states.
Lautenberg and Thompson singled out three companies -- Halliburton Co., ConocoPhillips, and GE -- for exploiting what they said was a loophole in the law.
The government has identified Iran, Syria, Libya, Cuba, Sudan and North Korea as sponsors of terrorism. Libya is working to have its sanctions dropped.
ConocoPhillips, the nation's third-largest oil company, has already promised to pull out of Syria once a contract expires next year.
Thompson, a Democrat who manages $80 billion of New York pension money, including funds for firefighters and police officers, has said if Congress does move to end companies' business with terror sponsors, other pension managers around the country are considering joining his effort.
Congress has ordered the Security and Exchange Commission to identify all U.S. public companies operating in countries the government says sponsor terrorism and ensure that information is disclosed to stockholders.
Iran Condemns Bush Speech on Terrorism
Iran's Supreme Leader Condemns Bush's Address in Which He Accused Tehran of Sponsoring Terrorism
By NASSER KARIMI
AP - Feb. 3, 2005 - Iran's supreme leader on Thursday condemned President Bush's State of the Union address in which he accused Tehran of sponsoring terrorism, saying Washington was seeking to uproot Iran's ruling Islamic establishment but would fail.
"The Islamic Republic of Iran, because of supporting the oppressed and confronting oppressors, is being attacked by the global tyrants," state-run television quoted Ayatollah Ali Khamenei as saying.
"They (America) are trying, in a real but nonmilitary confrontation, through every possible means, to deny the talented Iranian nation of progress and deprive it of existence."
Khamenei was responding to Bush's annual speech to Congress on Wednesday, in which he accused Iran of being "the world's primary state sponsor of terror."
"America is like one of the big heads of a seven-headed dragon," Khamenei said. "The brains directing it are Zionist and non-Zionist capitalists who brought Bush to power to meet their own interests."
The European Union, however, welcomed Bush's comments on cooperative diplomatic efforts concerning Iran's nuclear program.
"To cooperate with the Americans is very important and very helpful," said Foreign Minister Jean Asselborn of Luxembourg, which holds the EU presidency. "Together, the Europeans and the Americans can put real pressure on Iran to find a solution."
Syria also rejected Bush's charge that it sponsored terrorism, with the information minister saying the democracy that Washington seeks for the Middle East cannot come through force.
Although criticized for his stern words on Syria and Iran, Bush also won some praise in the region for calling for an independent Palestinian state living side-by-side in peace with Israel.
South Korea, meanwhile, welcomed Bush's softened tone toward North Korea, hoping it would help the communist country return to talks aimed at ending its nuclear weapons programs.
Khamenei, who has the final say on all state matters in Iran and is also commander in chief of the armed forces, said all U.S. presidents since 1979 have sought to overthrow Iran's ruling establishment, but all failed one after the other.
"Bush is the fifth U.S. president seeking to uproot the Iranian nation and the Islamic Republic of Iran. (Jimmy) Carter, (Ronald) Reagan and father (George H.W.) Bush and (Bill) Clinton failed. This president will also fail," Khamenei was quoted as telling students during a meeting.
He said Iran has convinced nations in the Islamic world they can defeat the Americans, whom he routinely calls "the global tyrants."
"The Iranian nation not only has confronted the global tyrants, it has also convinced the Islamic world that it's possible to defeat the arrogance," the broadcast quoted Khamenei as saying.
In his speech, which came too late for Middle Eastern newspapers to publish, Bush said Washington was working with European allies to persuade Tehran to end its nuclear programs and stop supporting terror.
Addressing the Iranian people, he said: "As you stand for your own liberty, America stands with you."
On a street in the Iranian capital, Ali Dehqani said Bush should stay out of Iran's business.
"Bush's comment is right somehow. The people of Iran are restricted. Iran follows nuclear technology. But it's not his business to intervene in Iran's affairs," the 55-year-old man said. "Also, there is no evidence of support of terrorism by Iran."
Bush's speech amounted to "incitement and provocation against Iran," said Khaled al-Maeena, editor of the Saudi newspaper Arab News. He described the policy as "wrong and dangerous."
Ayed al-Manna, columnist in the Al-Watan daily in Kuwait, said Bush's words to the Iranians were "dangerous" and he feared such a move would lead to bloodshed. The Iranian regime is strong and it would be "better to talk to it and develop the democracy already in place," he said.
Russian lawmaker Konstantin Kosachyov, head of the foreign policy committee in the State Duma, the lower house, said Bush's characterization of Iran as the main center of world terrorism showed that his speech was "written by propagandists, not analysts."
Bush said America will work with friends in the region to fight terrorism while encouraging a higher standard of freedom. He said Syria allows its territory, and parts of Lebanon, to be used by "terrorists who seek to destroy every chance of peace" in the region.
"We expect the Syrian government to end all support for terror and open the door to freedom," Bush said.
Syrian Information Minister Mehdi Dakhlallah rejected the accusations, telling Al-Jazeera Arab satellite television that "everyone knows that Syria is cooperating in fighting terrorism."
Syria has cooperated with the West on tracking down al-Qaida supporters but has rejected U.S. calls to crack down on Palestinian militant groups Hamas and Islamic Jihad, and Lebanese Hezbollah guerrillas who operate in southern Lebanon. Washington labels the Palestinian and Lebanese groups as terrorists.
The United States also accuses Syria of allowing insurgents to cross its border into Iraq, claims that Syria denies.
Syrian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Bushra Kanafani said Damascus "is working to do everything in its power to control" its border with Iraq.
Dakhlallah said Bush's remarks about an independent Palestinian state were positive.
"Freedoms cannot be exported by tanks and planes, death and destruction," he said. "The characteristics of the region and the distinctiveness of its peoples and cultures must be understood," he said.
Bush also called on Saudi Arabia and Egypt to take steps toward democracy, words that some considered interference.
"We thank Mr. Bush, but we are already having elections," said al-Maeena of Arab News. He referred to the staging later this month of Saudi Arabia's first municipal elections in 45 years.
"I don't believe we need Mr. Bush to advise us," he said. "This is an internal issue and we are working on it."
Bush only briefly mentioned North Korea during his address, saying Washington was "working closely with governments in Asia to convince North Korea to abandon its nuclear ambitions."
That was a stark contrast to his speech three years ago, when he branded North Korea part of an "axis of evil" with Iran and Iraq.
The absence of hostile rhetoric raised hopes for a positive response from North Korea. Analysts have said the North was waiting to see what Bush would say in the speech.
"We assess that President Bush's speech reflected Washington's will to resolve the North's nuclear issue through a peaceful and diplomatic way," South Korea's Foreign Ministry said. "Now, it's time for North Korea to make a positive response and for us to resume the six-party talks soon and make concrete progress for the resolution of the North Korean nuclear issue."
After the speech, Bush spoke with Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi and agreed that it was important to communicate to Pyongyang "that the world was serious about the North Korean problem," Japan's Foreign Ministry said.
Since 2003, the United States, the two Koreas, China, Japan and Russia have held three rounds of talks on the North's nuclear weapons programs, with no significant progress reported. A fourth round of talks scheduled for September was canceled because North Korea refused to attend.
Iran, Syria Reject Terrorism Allegations
By NASSER KARIMI
TEHRAN, Iran (AP - 3 Feb) - Iran and Syria rejected President Bush's charges that they sponsored terrorism, with an Iranian official calling the claims groundless Thursday and the Syrian information minister saying the democracy that Washington seeks for the Middle East cannot come through force.
Although criticized for his stern words on Syria and Iran, Bush also won some praise in the region for calling in his State of the Union address for an independent Palestinian state living side by side in peace with Israel.
South Korea, meanwhile, welcomed Bush's softened tone toward North Korea, hoping it would help the communist country return to talks aimed at ending its nuclear weapons programs.
Bush's speech came early Thursday in the Middle East, too late for newspapers to publish it.
He accused Iran of being "the world's primary state sponsor of terror," saying Washington is working with European allies to convince Tehran to end its nuclear programs and stop supporting terror.
Addressing the Iranian people, he said: "As you stand for your own liberty, America stands with you."
Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi, in remarks carried by the official news agency, said Bush's words were "a repetition of his former groundless claims and accusations. He talked about some issues that are not related to the current situation while closed his eyes on realities of Iran."
On a street in the Iranian capital, Ali Dehqani said Bush should stay out of Iran's business.
"Bush's comment is right somehow. The people of Iran are restricted. Iran follows nuclear technology. But it's not his business to intervene in Iran's affairs," the 55-year-old man said. "Also, there is no evidence of support of terrorism by Iran."
Bush's speech amounted to "incitement and provocation against Iran," said Khaled al-Maeena, editor of the Saudi newspaper Arab News. He described the policy as "wrong and dangerous."
Ayed al-Manna, columnist in the Al-Watan daily in Kuwait, said Bush's words to the Iranians were "dangerous" and he feared such a move would lead to bloodshed. The Iranian regime is strong and it would be "better to talk to it and develop the democracy already in place," he said.
Russian lawmaker Konstantin Kosachyov, head of the foreign policy committee in the State Duma, the lower house, said Bush's characterization of Iran as the main center of world terrorism showed that his speech was "written by propagandists, not analysts."
Bush said America will work with friends in the region to fight terror while encouraging a higher standard of freedom. He said Syria allows its territory, and parts of Lebanon, to be used by "terrorists who seek to destroy every chance of peace" in the region.
"We expect the Syrian government to end all support for terror and open the door to freedom," Bush said.
Syrian Information Minister Mehdi Dakhlallah rejected the accusations.
"Everyone knows that Syria is cooperating in fighting terrorism, but the definition of terrorism cannot be selective and based on ideology and politics," he said on Al-Jazeera Arab satellite television.
Syria has cooperated with the West on tracking down al-Qaida supporters but has rejected U.S. calls to crack down on Palestinian militant groups Hamas and Islamic Jihad as well as Lebanese Hezbollah guerrillas who operate in southern Lebanon. Washington labels the Palestinian and Lebanese groups as terrorists.
The United States also accuses Syria of allowing insurgents to cross its border into Iraq, claims that Syria denies.
Syrian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Bushra Kanafani said Damascus "has worked and is working to do everything in its power to control" the border with Iraq.
Dakhlallah described Bush's remarks about an independent Palestinian state as a "positive development."
"Freedoms cannot be exported by tanks and planes, death and destruction," he said. "The characteristics of the region and the distinctiveness of its peoples and cultures must be understood," he said.
Bush also called on Saudi Arabia and Egypt to take steps toward democracy, words that some analysts took as interference.
"We thank Mr. Bush, but we are already having elections," said al-Maeena of Arab News. He referred to the staging later this month of Saudi Arabia's first municipal elections in 45 years.
"I don't believe we need Mr. Bush to advise us," he said. "This is an internal issue and we are working on it."
Bush only briefly mentioned North Korea during his State of the Union address, saying Washington was "working closely with governments in Asia to convince North Korea to abandon its nuclear ambitions."
That was a stark contrast to his speech three years ago, when he branded North Korea part of an "axis of evil" with Iran and Iraq.
The absence of hostile rhetoric raised hopes for a positive response from North Korea. Analysts have said the North was waiting to see what Bush would say in the speech.
"We assess that President Bush's speech reflected Washington's will to resolve the North's nuclear issue through a peaceful and diplomatic way," South Korea's Foreign Ministry said. "Now, it's time for North Korea to make a positive response and for us to resume the six-party talks soon and make concrete progress for the resolution of the North Korean nuclear issue."
Analysts in South Korea predicted that the absence of harsh words would help restart the nuclear talks.
"The United States appears to have carefully prepared the speech so as not to give North Korea an excuse for not coming to the six-party talks," Kim Sung-han, a professor at Seoul's Institute of Foreign Affairs and National Security, said in an interview with TV channel YTN.
Professor Koh Yu-hwan of Seoul's Dongguk University said Bush seemed to be giving North Korea "one more chance."
After the speech, Bush spoke with Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi and agreed that it was important to communicate to Pyongyang "that the world was serious about the North Korean problem," Japan's Foreign Ministry said.
Last edited by Alpha on Fri Feb 04, 2005 10:45 pm; edited 2 times in total | |  | | Alpha | | Posted: Thu Feb 03, 2005 7:40 am Post subject: Zionist Neocon Pentagon Cabal Push More War for Israel |
| The Men From JINSA and CSP
by JASON VEST
[from the September 2, 2002 issue]
Almost thirty years ago, a prominent group of neoconservative hawks found an effective vehicle for advocating their views via the Committee on the Present Danger, a group that fervently believed the United States was a hair away from being militarily surpassed by the Soviet Union, and whose raison d'être was strident advocacy of bigger military budgets, near-fanatical opposition to any form of arms control and zealous championing of a Likudnik Israel. Considered a marginal group in its nascent days during the Carter Administration, with the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980 CPD went from the margins to the center of power.
Just as the right-wing defense intellectuals made CPD a cornerstone of a shadow defense establishment during the Carter Administration, so, too, did the right during the Clinton years, in part through two organizations: the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA) and the Center for Security Policy (CSP). And just as was the case two decades ago, dozens of their members have ascended to powerful government posts, where their advocacy in support of the same agenda continues, abetted by the out-of-government adjuncts from which they came. Industrious and persistent, they've managed to weave a number of issues--support for national missile defense, opposition to arms control treaties, championing of wasteful weapons systems, arms aid to Turkey and American unilateralism in general--into a hard line, with support for the Israeli right at its core.
On no issue is the JINSA/CSP hard line more evident than in its relentless campaign for war--not just with Iraq, but "total war," as Michael Ledeen, one of the most influential JINSAns in Washington, put it last year. For this crew, "regime change" by any means necessary in Iraq, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia and the Palestinian Authority is an urgent imperative. Anyone who dissents--be it Colin Powell's State Department, the CIA or career military officers--is committing heresy against articles of faith that effectively hold there is no difference between US and Israeli national security interests, and that the only way to assure continued safety and prosperity for both countries is through hegemony in the Middle East--a hegemony achieved with the traditional cold war recipe of feints, force, clientism and covert action.
For example, the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board--chaired by JINSA/CSP adviser and former Reagan Administration Defense Department official Richard Perle, and stacked with advisers from both groups--recently made news by listening to a briefing that cast Saudi Arabia as an enemy to be brought to heel through a number of potential mechanisms, many of which mirror JINSA's recommendations, and which reflect the JINSA/CSP crowd's preoccupation with Egypt. (The final slide of the Defense Policy Board presentation proposed that "Grand Strategy for the Middle East" should concentrate on "Iraq as the tactical pivot, Saudi Arabia as the strategic pivot [and] Egypt as the prize.") Ledeen has been leading the charge for regime change in Iran, while old comrades like Andrew Marshall and Harold Rhode in the Pentagon's Office of Net Assessment actively tinker with ways to re-engineer both the Iranian and Saudi governments. JINSA is also cheering the US military on as it tries to secure basing rights in the strategic Red Sea country of Eritrea, happily failing to mention that the once-promising secular regime of President Isaiais Afewerki continues to slide into the kind of repressive authoritarianism practiced by the "axis of evil" and its adjuncts.
Indeed, there are some in military and intelligence circles who have taken to using "axis of evil" in reference to JINSA and CSP, along with venerable repositories of hawkish thinking like the American Enterprise Institute and the Hudson Institute, as well as defense contractors, conservative foundations and public relations entities underwritten by far-right American Zionists (all of which help to underwrite JINSA and CSP). It's a milieu where ideology and money seamlessly blend: "Whenever you see someone identified in print or on TV as being with the Center for Security Policy or JINSA championing a position on the grounds of ideology or principle--which they are unquestionably doing with conviction--you are, nonetheless, not informed that they're also providing a sort of cover for other ideologues who just happen to stand to profit from hewing to the Likudnik and Pax Americana lines," says a veteran intelligence officer. He notes that while the United States has begun a phaseout of civilian aid to Israel that will end by 2007, government policy is to increase military aid by half the amount of civilian aid that's cut each year--which is not only a boon to both the US and Israeli weapons industries but is also crucial to realizing the far right's vision for missile defense and the Middle East.
Founded in 1976 by neoconservatives concerned that the United States might not be able to provide Israel with adequate military supplies in the event of another Arab-Israeli war, over the past twenty-five years JINSA has gone from a loose-knit proto-group to a $1.4-million-a-year operation with a formidable array of Washington power players on its rolls. Until the beginning of the current Bush Administration, JINSA's board of advisers included such heavy hitters as Dick Cheney, John Bolton (now Under Secretary of State for Arms Control) and Douglas Feith, the third-highest-ranking executive in the Pentagon. Both Perle and former Director of Central Intelligence James Woolsey, two of the loudest voices in the attack-Iraq chorus, are still on the board, as are such Reagan-era relics as Jeane Kirkpatrick, Eugene Rostow and Ledeen--Oliver North's Iran/contra liaison with the Israelis.
According to its website, JINSA exists to "educate the American public about the importance of an effective US defense capability so that our vital interests as Americans can be safeguarded" and to "inform the American defense and foreign affairs community about the important role Israel can and does play in bolstering democratic interests in the Mediterranean and the Middle East." In practice, this translates into its members producing a steady stream of op-eds and reports that have been good indicators of what the Pentagon's civilian leadership is thinking.
JINSA relishes denouncing virtually any type of contact between the US government and Syria and finding new ways to demonize the Palestinians. To give but one example (and one that kills two birds with one stone): According to JINSA, not only is Yasir Arafat in control of all violence in the occupied territories, but he orchestrates the violence solely "to protect Saddam.... Saddam is at the moment Arafat's only real financial supporter.... [Arafat] has no incentive to stop the violence against Israel and allow the West to turn its attention to his mentor and paymaster." And if there's a way to advance other aspects of the far-right agenda by intertwining them with Israeli interests, JINSA doesn't hesitate there, either. A recent report contends that the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge must be tapped because "the Arab oil-producing states" are countries "with interests inimical to ours," but Israel "stand[s] with us when we need [Israel]," and a US policy of tapping oil under ANWR will "limit [the Arabs'] ability to do damage to either of us."
The bulk of JINSA's modest annual budget is spent on taking a bevy of retired US generals and admirals to Israel, where JINSA facilitates meetings between Israeli officials and the still-influential US flag officers, who, upon their return to the States, happily write op-eds and sign letters and advertisements championing the Likudnik line. (Sowing seeds for the future, JINSA also takes US service academy cadets to Israel each summer and sponsors a lecture series at the Army, Navy and Air Force academies.) In one such statement, issued soon after the outbreak of the latest intifada, twenty-six JINSAns of retired flag rank, including many from the advisory board, struck a moralizing tone, characterizing Palestinian violence as a "perversion of military ethics" and holding that "America's role as facilitator in this process should never yield to America's responsibility as a friend to Israel," as "friends don't leave friends on the battlefield."
However high-minded this might sound, the postservice associations of the letter's signatories--which are almost always left off the organization's website and communiqués--ought to require that the phrase be amended to say "friends don't leave friends on the battlefield, especially when there's business to be done and bucks to be made." Almost every retired officer who sits on JINSA's board of advisers or has participated in its Israel trips or signed a JINSA letter works or has worked with military contractors who do business with the Pentagon and Israel. While some keep a low profile as self-employed "consultants" and avoid mention of their clients, others are less shy about their associations, including with the private mercenary firm Military Professional Resources International, weapons broker and military consultancy Cypress International and SY Technology, whose main clients include the Pentagon's Missile Defense Agency, which oversees several ongoing joint projects with Israel.
The behemoths of military contracting are also well represented in JINSA's ranks. For example, JINSA advisory board members Adm. Leon Edney, Adm. David Jeremiah and Lieut. Gen. Charles May, all retired, have served Northrop Grumman or its subsidiaries as either consultants or board members. Northrop Grumman has built ships for the Israeli Navy and sold F-16 avionics and E-2C Hawkeye planes to the Israeli Air Force (as well as the Longbow radar system to the Israeli army for use in its attack helicopters). It also works with Tamam, a subsidiary of Israeli Aircraft Industries, to produce an unmanned aerial vehicle. Lockheed Martin has sold more than $2 billion worth of F-16s to Israel since 1999, as well as flight simulators, multiple-launch rocket systems and Seahawk heavyweight torpedoes. At one time or another, General May, retired Lieut. Gen. Paul Cerjan and retired Adm. Carlisle Trost have labored in LockMart's vineyards. Trost has also sat on the board of General Dynamics, whose Gulfstream subsidiary has a $206 million contract to supply planes to Israel to be used for "special electronics missions."
By far the most profitably diversified of the JINSAns is retired Adm. David Jeremiah. President and partner of Technology Strategies & Alliances Corporation (described as a "strategic advisory firm and investment banking firm engaged primarily in the aerospace, defense, telecommunications and electronics industries"), Jeremiah also sits on the boards of Northrop Grumman's Litton subsidiary and of defense giant Alliant Techsystems, which--in partnership with Israel's TAAS--does a brisk business in rubber bullets. And he has a seat on the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board, chaired by Perle.
About the only major defense contractor without a presence on JINSA's advisory board is Boeing, which has had a relationship with Israeli Aircraft Industries for thirty years. (Boeing also sells F-15s to Israel and, in partnership with Lockheed Martin, Apache attack helicopters, a ubiquitous weapon in the occupied territories.) But take a look at JINSA's kindred spirit in things pro-Likud and pro-Star Wars, the Center for Security Policy, and there on its national security advisory council are Stanley Ebner, a former Boeing executive; Andrew Ellis, vice president for government relations; and Carl Smith, a former staff director of the Senate Armed Services Committee who, as a lawyer in private practice, has counted Boeing among his clients. "JINSA and CSP," says a veteran Pentagon analyst, "may as well be one and the same."
Not a hard sell: There's always been considerable overlap beween the JINSA and CSP rosters--JINSA advisers Jeane Kirkpatrick, Richard Perle and Phyllis Kaminsky also serve on CSP's advisory council; current JINSA advisory board chairman David Steinmann sits on CSP's board of directors; and before returning to the Pentagon Douglas Feith served as the board's chair. At this writing, twenty-two CSP advisers--including additional Reagan-era remnants like Elliott Abrams, Ken deGraffenreid, Paula Dobriansky, Sven Kraemer, Robert Joseph, Robert Andrews and J.D. Crouch--have reoccupied key positions in the national security establishment, as have other true believers of more recent vintage.
While CSP boasts an impressive advisory list of hawkish luminaries, its star is Frank Gaffney, its founder, president and CEO. A protégé of Perle going back to their days as staffers for the late Senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson (a k a the Senator from Boeing, and the Senate's most zealous champion of Israel in his day), Gaffney later joined Perle at the Pentagon, only to be shown the door by Defense Secretary Frank Carlucci in 1987, not long after Perle left. Gaffney then reconstituted the latest incarnation of the Committee on the Present Danger. Beyond compiling an A-list of influential conservative hawks, Gaffney has been prolific over the past fifteen years, churning out a constant stream of reports (as well as regular columns for the Washington Times) making the case that the gravest threats to US national security are China, Iraq, still-undeveloped ballistic missiles launched by rogue states, and the passage of or adherence to virtually any form of arms control treaty.
Gaffney and CSP's prescriptions for national security have been fairly simple: Gut all arms control treaties, push ahead with weapons systems virtually everyone agrees should be killed (such as the V-22 Osprey), give no quarter to the Palestinians and, most important, go full steam ahead on just about every national missile defense program. (CSP was heavily represented on the late-1990s Commission to Assess the Ballistic Missile Threat to the United States, which was instrumental in keeping the program alive during the Clinton years.)
Looking at the center's affiliates, it's not hard to see why: Not only are makers of the Osprey (Boeing) well represented on the CSP's board of advisers but so too is Lockheed Martin (by vice president for space and strategic missiles Charles Kupperman and director of defense systems Douglas Graham). Former TRW executive Amoretta Hoeber is also a CSP adviser, as is former Congressman and Raytheon lobbyist Robert Livingston. Ball Aerospace & Technologies--a major manufacturer of NASA and Pentagon satellites--is represented by former Navy Secretary John Lehman, while missile-defense computer systems maker Hewlett-Packard is represented by George Keyworth, who is on its board of directors. And the Congressional Missile Defense Caucus and Osprey (or "tilt rotor") caucus are represented by Representative Curt Weldon and Senator Jon Kyl.
CSP was instrumental in developing the arguments against the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. Largely ignored or derided at the time, a 1995 CSP memo co-written by Douglas Feith holding that the United States should withdraw from the ABM treaty has essentially become policy, as have other CSP reports opposing the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, the Chemical Weapons Convention and the International Criminal Court. But perhaps the most insightful window on the JINSA/CSP policy worldview comes in the form of a paper Perle and Feith collaborated on in 1996 with six others under the auspices of the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies. Essentially an advice letter to ascendant Israeli politician Benjamin Netanyahu, "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm" makes for insightful reading as a kind of US-Israeli neoconservative manifesto.
The paper's first prescription was for an Israeli rightward economic shift, with tax cuts and a selloff of public lands and enterprises--moves that would also engender support from a "broad bipartisan spectrum of key pro-Israeli Congressional leaders." But beyond economics, the paper essentially reads like a blueprint for a mini-cold war in the Middle East, advocating the use of proxy armies for regime changes, destabilization and containment. Indeed, it even goes so far as to articulate a way to advance right-wing Zionism by melding it with missile-defense advocacy. "Mr. Netanyahu can highlight his desire to cooperate more closely with the United States on anti-missile defense in order to remove the threat of blackmail which even a weak and distant army can pose to either state," it reads. "Not only would such cooperation on missile defense counter a tangible physical threat to Israel's survival, but it would broaden Israel's base of support among many in the United States Congress who may know little about Israel, but care very much about missile defense"--something that has the added benefit of being "helpful in the effort to move the US embassy in Israel to Jerusalem."
Recent months in Washington have shown just how influential the notions propagated by JINSA and CSP are--and how disturbingly zealous their advocates are. In early March Feith vainly attempted to get the CIA to keep former intelligence officers Milt Bearden and Frank Anderson from accepting an invitation to an Afghanistan-related meeting with Defense Secretary Rumsfeld at the Pentagon--not because of what the two might say about Afghanistan, according to sources familiar with the incident, but likely out of fear that Anderson, a veteran Arabist and former chief of the CIA's Near East division, would proffer his views on Iraq (opposed to invading) and Israel-Palestine (a fan of neither Arafat nor Sharon). In late June, after United Press International reported on a US Muslim civil liberties group's lambasting of Gaffney for his attacks on the American Muslim Council, Gaffney, according to a fellow traveler, "went berserk," launching a stream of invective about the UPI scribe who reported the item.
It's incidents like this, say knowledgeable observers and participants, that highlight an interesting dynamic among right-wing hawks at the moment. Though the general agenda put forth by JINSA and CSP continues to be reflected in councils of war, even some of the hawks (including Rumsfeld deputy Paul Wolfowitz) are growing increasingly leery of Israel's settlements policy and Gaffney's relentless support for it. Indeed, his personal stock in Bush Administration circles is low. "Gaffney has worn out his welcome by being an overbearing gadfly rather than a serious contributor to policy," says a senior Pentagon political official. Since earlier this year, White House political adviser Karl Rove has been casting about for someone to start a new, more mainstream defense group that would counter the influence of CSP. According to those who have communicated with Rove on the matter, his quiet efforts are in response to complaints from many conservative activists who feel let down by Gaffney, or feel he's too hard on President Bush. "A lot of us have taken [Gaffney] at face value over the years," one influential conservative says. "Yet we now know he's pushed for some of the most flawed missile defense and conventional systems. He considered Cuba a 'classic asymmetric threat' but not Al Qaeda. And since 9/11, he's been less concerned with the threat to America than to Israel."
Gaffney's operation has always been a small one, about $1 million annually--funded largely by a series of grants from the conservative Olin, Bradley and various Scaife foundations, as well as some defense contractor money--but he's recently been able to underwrite a TV and print ad campaign holding that the Palestinians should be Enemy Number One in the War on Terror, still obsessed with the destruction of Israel. It's here that one sees the influence not of defense contractor money but of far-right Zionist dollars, including some from Irving Moskowitz, the California bingo magnate. A donor to both CSP and JINSA (as well as a JINSA director), Moskowitz not only sends millions of dollars a year to far-right Israeli settler groups like Ateret Cohanim but he has also funded the construction of settlements, having bought land for development in key Arab areas around Jerusalem. Moskowitz ponied up the money that enabled the 1996 reopening of a tunnel under the Temple Mount/Haram al-Sharif, which resulted in seventy deaths due to rioting. Also financing Gaffney's efforts is New York investment banker Lawrence Kadish. A valued and valuable patron of both the Republican National Committee and George W. Bush, Kadish helps underwrite CSP as well as Americans for Victory Over Terrorism, an offshoot of conservative activist William Bennett's Empower America, on which he and Gaffney serve as "senior advisers" in the service of identifying "external" and "internal" post-9/11 threats to America. (The "internal" threats, as articulated by AVOT, include former President Jimmy Carter, Harper's editor Lewis Lapham and Representative Maxine Waters.) Another of Gaffney's backers is Poju Zabludowicz, heir to a formidable diversified international empire that includes arms manufacturer Soltam--which once employed Perle--and benefactor of the recently established Britain Israel Communication and Research Centre, a London-based group that appears to equate reportage or commentary uncomplimentary to Zionism with anti-Semitism.
While a small but growing number of conservatives are voicing concerns about various aspects of foreign and defense policy--ranging from fear of overreach to lack of Congressional debate--the hawks seem to be ruling the roost. Beginning in October, hard-line American Enterprise Institute scholar Michael Rubin (to Rubin, outgoing UN human rights chief Mary Robinson is an abettor of terrorism) arrives at the Pentagon to take over the Defense Department's Iran-Iraq account, adding another voice to the Pentagon section of Ledeen's "total war" chorus. Colin Powell's State Department continues to take a beating from outside and inside--including Bolton and his special assistant David Wurmser. (An AEI scholar and far-right Zionist who's married to Meyrav Wurmser of the Middle East Media Research Institute--recently the subject of a critical investigation by London Guardian Middle East editor Brian Whitaker--Wurmser played a key role in crafting the "Arafat must go" policy that many career specialists see as a problematic sop to Ariel Sharon.)
As for Rumsfeld, based on comments made at a Pentagon "town hall" meeting on August 6, there seems to be little doubt as to whose comments are resonating most with him--and not just on missile defense and overseas adventures: After fielding a question about Israeli-Palestinian issues, he repeatedly referred to the "so-called occupied territories" and casually characterized the Israeli policy of building Jewish-only enclaves on Palestinian land as "mak[ing] some settlement in various parts of the so-called occupied area," with which Israel can do whatever it wants, as it has "won" all its wars with various Arab entities--essentially an echo of JINSA's stated position that "there is no Israeli occupation." Ominously, Rumsfeld's riff gave a ranking Administration official something of a chill: "I realized at that point," he said, "that on settlements--where there are cleavages on the right--Wolfowitz may be to the left of Rumsfeld."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The above 'Men from JINSA and CSP' article (from 'The Nation' by Jason Vest) is the one that Fisk refers to in the following article about JINSA that intially appeared in the London Independent (and is where I first learned about JINSA- Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs ):
Bush is intent on painting allies and enemies in the Middle East as evil
By Robert Fisk - 10 September 2002
http://www.independent.co.uk/story.jsp?story=332011
Just as Americans are recovering from the harrowing television re-runs of the 11 September attacks, their President is going to launch the biggest reshaping of the Middle East since the British and French parcelled out the Arab lands after the 1914-18 war. When he addresses the United Nations on Thursday, George Bush will be threatening not only Iraq – which had absolutely nothing to do with the crimes against humanity in New York and Washington – but Syria, Iran and, by extension, Saudi Arabia and Egypt.
The Syrian Accountability Act, which accuses Damascus of supporting "terrorism", will come into force as President Bush is speaking and will follow only days after the State Department branded the Lebanese Hizbollah as the "A-team of terrorism", more dangerous even than Osama bin Laden's al-Qa'ida. Like Iraq, the Hizbollah had nothing to do with the 11 September attacks – indeed, they were among the first to condemn them – but the White House now seems set on painting allies and enemies alike in the Middle East as a focus of evil.
Only The Nation among all of America's newspapers and magazines has dared to point out that a large number of former Israeli lobbyists are now working within the American administration and the Bush plans for the Middle East – which could cause a massive political upheaval in the Arab world – fit perfectly into Israel's own dreams for the region. The magazine listed Vice-President Dick Cheney – the arch-hawk in the US administration – and John Bolton, now under-secretary of state for Arms Control, with Douglas Feith, the third most senior executive at the Pentagon, as members of the advisory board of the pro-Israeli Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (Jinsa) before joining the Bush government. Richard Perle, chairman of the Pentagon's Defence Policy Board, is still an adviser on the institute, as is the former CIA director James Woolsey.
Michael Ledeen, described by The Nation as "one of the most influential 'Jinsans' in Washington" has been calling for "total war" against "terror" – with "regime change" for Syria, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and the Palestinian Authority. Mr Perle advises the Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld – who refers to the West Bank and Gaza as "the so-called occupied territories" – and arranged the anti-Saudi "kernel of evil" briefing by Laurent Murawiec that so outraged the Saudi royal family last month. The Saudi regime may itself be in great danger as the princes of the House of Saud attempt to seize more power for themselves in advance of the depart-ure of the dying King Fahd.
Jinsa's website says it exists to "inform the American defence and foreign affairs community about the important role Israel can and does play in bolstering democratic interests in the Mediterranean and the Middle East". Next month, Michael Rubin of the right-wing and pro-Israeli American Enterprise Institute – who referred to the outgoing UN human rights commissioner Mary Robinson as an abettor of "terrorism" – joins the US Defence Department as an Iran-Iraq "expert".
According to The Nation, Irving Moskovitz, the California bingo magnate who has funded settlements in the Israeli-occupied territories, is a donor as well as a director of Jinsa.
President Bush, of course, will not be talking about the influence of these pro-Israeli lobbyists when he presents his vision of the Middle East at the United Nations on Thursday.
Nor will he give the slightest indication that the region is, in the words of its own kings and dictators, a powder keg of resentment and anger. The tectonic plates of the Arab world are now grinding with increasing violence. Into this political earthquake zone, Mr Bush now seems intent on leading his country, with his loyal British ally.
Most of today's Arab nations were fashioned out of the ruins of the Ottoman Empire by Britain and France in the aftermath of the First World War – and Palestinians still blame Britain today for supporting the formation of a Jewish homeland in Palestine.
Both European nations stationed tens of thousands of troops across the region, suppressing Arab revolts in Palestine, Syria and Lebanon – itself created by the French at the request of its Christian Maronite community. The whole colonial framework led to the loss of tens of thousands of lives before both the British and French retreated from the Middle East.
Now President Bush seems set on following the colonial powers into the region for another military and political adventure – ostensibly to spread "democracy" among those nations it most despises (Iraq, Palestine and Iran) but in fact more likely to increase American control of an increasingly anti-Western Arab world.
The Arabs themselves warn that this will lead to massive instability and widespread violence. The Israelis – and their allies in the US administration – are hell bent on the whole shebang.
go to top
http://www.robert-fisk.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Zionist Neocon Pentagon Cabal Push More War for Israel
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2005/01/23/the-pentagon-neocons-who-brought-you-the-war-in-iraq.php
http://www.nowarforisrael.com
http://www.nogw.com/warforisrael.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/GA27Ak05.html
SPEAKING FREELY
Iran approaches a flashpoint
By Kam Zarrabi
Speaking Freely is an Asia Times Online feature that allows guest writers to have their say. Please click here if you are interested in contributing.
For what might my draft-age son be fighting? For whom will the bells toll this time?
Seymour Hersh's article "The coming wars" in The New Yorker magazine should not have surprised anyone. Iran has been in the crosshairs, and remains there, ever since it was crowned as the biggest threat to international peace and security by the Bush administration soon after September 11, 2001.
President George W Bush, in his State of the Union address in January 2002, lumped Iran together with Iraq and North Korea as members of an "axis of evil", to be confronted in the United States' "war on international terrorism".
The real enemy, or the source of threat against the security of the United States, was reconfirmed to be the al-Qaeda camp, headed by Osama bin Laden, masterminding its operations from Afghanistan's mountain strongholds. However, the September 11 attacks provided an unexpected and highly welcomed opportunity for dormant power centers to come together and join forces with a common agenda. The target was broadened almost immediately to encompass the entire Middle East, and later Islam as a whole, called militant Islam, of course, for political correctness.
Organizations and think-tanks such as the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and the Middle East Forum, as well as many hardcore evangelicals, found in the national tragedy the catalyst that brought them together in a crusade against a common enemy. A true national tragedy was thus hijacked.
To summarize, this grand unified powerhouse consisted of three major vectors of influence, not all aligned in the same exact direction, but with enough in common to evolve into a united front.
First was the global projection of America's military and economic dominance, the stated agenda of PNAC (read "American Empire"). The big fish floating in this think-tank include Vice President Dick Cheney, Pentagon head Donald Rumsfeld and his deputy Paul Wolfowitz, Elliot Abrams of the National Security Council, and several other high-profile people who bear heavily on our foreign-policy decisions.
Second was the promotion and implementation of policies that, first and foremost, served the interests of the Israeli government at whatever cost to whomever, friend or foe. AIPAC, the most powerful lobbying organization in Washington, after AARP, is the only foreign lobby to become a favorite platform for America's top executives and opinion molders, from the president on down to the influence-peddling journalists, whenever matters of foreign policy are the issue.
The hardcore Christian Right, whose evangelical vision of global salvation would, to follow biblical tradition, begin in the Middle East, was the largest horse in the troika, in numbers, as well as in appeal to the office of the commander in chief.
These unleashed forces found the American public, traditionally uninterested and blissfully naive in international affairs, and now in shock after September 11, ready and anxious to support a strong leader committed to bringing the wrongdoers to justice and to eradicating the global evil. These promises were given to the American people by the president, promptly and in no uncertain terms. The next step was targeting the wrongdoers, their supporters and the sources or the breeding grounds of evil.
Call for retaliation
The American people, indeed the whole world, expected immediate and massive retaliatory action against those who had committed such blatant and bold savagery against innocent civilians on America's own soil. The culprits were the same folks who were responsible for other attacks on US targets in the Middle East and East Africa - bin Laden's al-Qaeda network.
But that was clearly not enough; terrorists had to have sanctuaries in areas where they could be sheltered and protected or tolerated by tribes or regimes. Furthermore, some governments in the region more than just sympathized with the terrorists' goals and objectives; these regimes might even have provided material and strategic support for such groups and facilitated their activities. It was, therefore, a necessary part of the unfolding strategic planning to chart out the states and regimes in the Middle East that could be regarded as safe havens for terror groups, or which might be active supporters of terrorists' agendas.
Each of the three main vectors of influence enumerated above promptly jumped on the bandwagon and produced their respective target lists. The so-called neo-conservatives, variously known as neo-cons, and alternatively described as neo-crazies or neo-goons, are best represented by the roster of the PNAC think-tank. The elite membership here includes some rather strange bedfellows, but all sharing in one basic principle: the global expansion of US hegemony by any means possible, including unilateralism, disregard for international law, and war.
The second phalanx, or the "Israel firsters", many of them neo-conservatives as well, wholeheartedly support the same thesis, as long as any action taken serves the Israeli regime's regional objectives, regardless of its costs to allies, including its benefactor, the United States, or catastrophic regional side-effects.
Finally, the religious right, whose power and influence have been steadily on the rise, provides the moral and ethical grounds in the public domain to portray the crusade against evil as exactly that, a Crusade with a capital "C". Strong religious underpinnings characterized the inaugural ceremonies of January 20. George W Bush was uncharacteristically eloquent as he waved his magic wand, promising once again to promote freedom and democracy and to fight tyranny throughout the world. His well-rehearsed speech was punctuated by references to god and divine justice, befitting a true crusader on a Messianic mission. As he stood there accepting the responsibility to lead the most powerful empire the world has ever seen, his sincerity, commitment and resolve were never in doubt.
The president's resolve and commitments were never in doubt the first time he took the oath of office, either. Neither were the determination and resolve of the power brokers behind the mask of power who could clearly see in the chief executive the perfect vehicle for success in their respective missions.
The public response to the tragedy of September 11 was understandably reactionary and volcanic. If 59 million voters indicated their preference for the Republicans' management of the tasks at hand last November, the numbers were far greater right after September 11, 2001, literally endorsing any measure the administration would choose to adopt against the perpetrators of that terrorist act.
The neo-cons and Israel-firsters and their cohorts and moles in the departments of Defense and State and the National Security Council, as well as among the personal advisors to the highest-ranking members of the administration, began to quickly rise and shine in the new atmosphere of fear and paranoia. It was time, they said, to seize the moment to hit them, and to hit them hard. But hit whom, where, with what, and in what order?
Targets identified
That answer was provided without delay: the enemy was militant Islam in the Middle East. And, of course, the United States had a close confidant and ally in that turbulent region that had always been portrayed and sold to the US public as a reliable monitoring station safeguarding America's strategic and security interests there - Israel, of course. This "trustworthy" monitoring station didn't waste any time to point to the various terrorist groups and regional states that sponsored terrorism. The Israeli lobby had worked long and hard to infiltrate the US Congress and every other agency or enterprise that had widespread influence over public opinion and public policy. It had been quite successful in establishing in the public mindset a sense of moral equivalency between the United States and Israel. Both nations were, according to the propaganda line, sharing in basic values and aspirations; two nations half a world apart, but with one soul.
So, selling the idea that those who opposed Israel's regional ambitions were at the same time opposed to America's interests was not a difficult task at all. The State Department's list of terrorist organizations includes Middle Eastern militant groups that have never initiated or posed a threat to Americans or US interests. The regional states who oppose Israel's policies and sympathize with the Palestinian or Lebanese militants who have been thorns on Israel's side have, by extension, been classified as sponsors of terrorism by the US.
This list conveniently excludes some governments that, although among the most blatant examples of tyranny and violation of human rights, are considered friendly or compliant for various strategic reasons. Saudi Arabia and Kuwait are America's strategic allies in regulating the price and the flow of oil out of the Persian Gulf. Jordan has always done as it has been told, and Egypt and Turkey have peace treaties with Israel.
The action begins
That left Iran, Iraq and Syria for Israel to contend with. Lebanon has been a de facto Syrian enclave, sharing Syria's fate, whatever it might turn out to be. Of these remaining Israel antagonists, Iraq was the most suitable target once the first logical target, Taliban-controlled Afghanistan, was attacked and occupied. While the assault on Afghanistan received relatively wide international support, albeit for the wrong reasons, the premise for extending the "war on terror" into Iraq was quite shaky at the start.
The invasion of Iraq was, however, pre-ordained as the first step in a series of events that was to accomplish two major objectives: first and foremost was to eliminate any and all resistance or opposition to America's extended control over the region's vital resources; and second, to defuse any and all challenges, existing or potential, to Israel's security and military supremacy. The visionaries at PNAC had, in fact, already produced the blueprint for the transformation of the Middle East, beginning with the invasion of Iraq, some years in advance of George W Bush's presidency.
With the US public ready and anxious for action, some justifiable pretext had to be found to invade Iraq. However, the United Nations team in search of Iraq's suspected weapons programs and stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) came alarmingly close to refuting those allegations and defusing the tension. This didn't sit well with the hawks in the administration, who refused to be deterred from their long-awaited ambitious dreams.
It would be naive to believe that the US, British and particularly the Israeli intelligence services were actually mistaken in their findings regarding Iraq's nuclear and other weapons programs or stockpiles; there couldn't have been such a grand intelligence failure. It would be much more reasonable to assume that the facts about the non-existence of such WMD were clearly established, just as the United Nations team was about to report before their mission was suspiciously aborted.
If there were, in fact, any doubts about Saddam Hussein's WMD, it would have been militarily foolish to expose the US forces, or Israel's population centers, to potential nuclear or chemical attacks. The very real suspicions about North Korean nuclear-weapons capabilities have already demonstrated why in that case caution and diplomacy became the strategy of choice.
And now for Iran
This brings us to the current developments with regard to Iran and the heightened state of alert that has been saturating the media, especially since the president's inaugural address last week.
Accusations against the Iranian regime parallel those brought against Iraq shortly before the actual invasion of that country by US forces. These accusations can be split into three main categories: First is the threat that a nuclear-armed enemy state could potentially pose against the United States and its strategic interests elsewhere. Second is the issue of Iran's alleged support for terrorist groups in Middle East hotspots. Finally, it is the humanitarian concern over Iran's treatment of its own citizens, particularly women and minorities, and the general atmosphere of suppression of civil liberties.
These allegations constitute ample pretext for the Bush administration hawks to put Iran on notice, as verbalized by the president and his secretary of state-designate, Condoleezza Rice. She was not short for words when questioned by senators during her confirmation hearings about her views regarding the issue of US-Iran relations. In response to Senator Joe Biden, she resorted to her usual rhetorical style of stringing along a profusion of academically erudite yet contextually vague phrases, simply echoing unsupported charges that have been mouthed by her superiors. In her case, that is actually all that is expected of her, and that is exactly how she acted in her capacity as the president's national security adviser.
Here it is important to note that, just as was the case with Iraq, suspicions, allegations and accusations do not require verification and proof to justify action. When it comes to foreign policy, the philosophy of this administration has been quite simple: do what you want to do; rationalize it later. This has been a time-tested Israeli model, now openly and, unfortunately proudly, adopted by the US administration.
Those who mobilized anti-war demonstrations, gave speeches, wrote books and created websites to reflect the perspectives of reason, sanity and experience in world affairs did find a substantial nationwide audience. However, the voices of reason, as welcome as they were, had the same effect as singing to a chorus. Now it is Iran's turn to become the subject of brilliant news analyses and debates between pro-war and anti-war journalists and opinion gurus.
A well-intentioned scientist with vast experience in nuclear-weapons technology and proliferation issues has been writing articles for a prestigious anti-war website, pointing to the fact that Iran is far from being able to develop a nuclear bomb. There is an international consensus, outside of the US and Israel, that Iran, far from causing agitation in neighboring Afghanistan and Iraq, has been quite helpful in supporting the stability of those countries, even if for Iran's own sake.
Iran's alleged support for terror organizations such as Hezbollah is yet another guise, both in terms of what defines terrorism and what constitutes support, that seems to suit the agenda at hand. And when it comes to promoting democratic reforms and fighting tyranny, injustice and violations of human rights, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and China, among many others, are, as Biden pointed out to Rice, far more deplorable than what we are accusing the Iranian regime of.
Are we forgetting that the invasion of Iraq was carried out with similar pretexts or excuses? Iran is, of course, a much larger country, with three times the population of Iraq and a terrain that is, unlike Iraq, nearly as difficult as Afghanistan's. Short of an all-out military attack from several flanks, followed by a massive invasion, no military action or insurgency can do to Iran what was done to Afghanistan or Iraq.
Surgical strikes at nuclear facilities by the Israelis, something that the US vice president has already hinted at, will not even effectively slow down any effort the Iranians might be making toward nuclear-weapons development. Any such attack will result in three outcomes: First, it will generate an even greater animosity toward the perpetrators and will strengthen the hardliners' grip on Iran, thus creating added obstacles for the reformists and pro-democracy movements to achieve their goals. Second, efforts would then be initiated or accelerated to acquire the ultimate weapon as a deterrent, if not to use in retaliation at an opportune time. Third, with its vast resources and great influence, the Iranian regime would do what it is already accused of doing - supporting insurgencies and creating as much trouble in the region against Israel and the US as possible.
So why Iran?
So, what is the logic, if any, behind all the recently intensified saber rattling from Washington? To answer that, we can believe the official pronouncements that the administration is trying to sell to the public, or an alternative version that risks the chance of being labeled as too conspiratorial; make your own choice.
The official version:
1 The world cannot tolerate a nuclear-armed Iran.
2 Iran harbors and supports international terror organizations.
3 Iran intends to disrupt our efforts to bring peace and democracy to the region.
4 Iran's mission is to destroy Israel.
5 Iran must go through a regime change, by military intervention if need be.
There are some who might question the method of approach to defusing the Iranian threat, but few in the United States would doubt that the Iranian threat is real and that it must be dealt with. This perception is not limited to political conservatives or Bush supporters; the Democrats share equally in this view, as was clearly demonstrated by their candidates during their presidential campaign speeches.
Nearly one-half of the US public is now aware, and to a degree surprised, that the invasion of Iraq was based on a less-than-honest appraisal of an Iraqi threat to America's security, and that it did not unfold as promised by the administration. Having learned from those mistakes, they now believe, the Iranian threat must surely have been much more clearly verified, and any military action will certainly be much better planned.
When the news of the death of talk-show host Johnny Carson occupies all headlines for days on end, and the major debate in the public domain is over which weight-loss diet works better, can we expect more?
Of course, if we accept certain conjectures as facts, the situation and the strategies to deal with it cannot be challenged. These pretexts, in addition to those enumerated above, include:
1 Iran is led by a group of turban-headed crazies.
2 Given the chance, they would not hesitate to destroy Israel, even if it meant an assured total devastation of their own country and people.
3 Iran is rapidly developing its weapons of mass destruction, including atomic bombs and long-range missiles, not for defensive purposes, but to attack Israel and to threaten Europe and North America.
4 Since they are lunatics, the Iranian Islamic leaders believe they will ultimately dominate the globe with their brand of fundamentalist Islam.
If such conjectures sound too stupid to be taken seriously, just listen to and read the same statements by some very high-profile national figures, from such journalists as Charles Krauthammer to the likes of House Majority Whip Tom Delay, or influential evangelicals such as Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, to the prolific conservative radio talk-show hosts who influence the minds of millions on a daily basis.
So, what might be an alternative view or interpretation of the current state of heightened anxiety between the US and Iran? But first, a list of facts on the ground that may illuminate some of Iran's concerns and objectives:
1 The average Iranian, as any other human being anywhere else, would prefer to live in a free and democratic society, in peace and with guaranteed security. However, just as is the case in the United States, when a nation is threatened by terrorism or military invasion, whether real or perceived, many social liberties and democratic aspirations or expectations may be put on hold, and in Iran's case, kept on hold indefinitely.
2 More than social liberties and democratic reforms, economic conditions play the most vital role in a nation's destiny. Sanctions and economic pressures imposed on Iran do no more than postpone the natural transition from a de facto theocracy to a more open civil society. The perpetuation and intensification of animosities toward Iran have been, and continue to be, the perfect recipe for further legitimizing the position of the hardliners in Iran's sociopolitical affairs.
3 Again, just as is the case in the United States, ultra-conservatives, even radical religious fanatics, be it Tom Delay, Billy Graham, or Ayatollah X Y Z at any given Friday sermon, do not hate their own country, but see the best course for their respective nations, each in their own way, as misguided as they might be.
4 Iran stands to gain nothing by posing a threat to Israel, unless, of course, in self-defense. Any hostile act toward the West or the US would mean a catastrophic end to all of Iran's hopes and aspirations as a viable nation. Aggression has never been an Iranian agenda, and would serve absolutely no purpose now.
5 Iran is a large country with some of the richest natural resources, including the region's biggest natural-gas reserves - the energy source of the future - rich oilfields, ore deposits and a growing industrial infrastructure. The Iranians are a proud people, proud of their national history and cultural heritage. They have shown resolve and resiliency in the face of many historical upheavals, ancient and recent, both foreign and domestic. Iran rightly expects to be acknowledged as a consequential player in the affairs of the region. Attempts to isolate and exclude Iran from any future designs for the Middle East will inevitably result in an unstable imbalance.
6 Diplomacy between two nations, no matter how large or small in relative terms, must be based on mutual respect, not as a dialogue between a master and a subordinate.
Who stands to gain?
By perpetuating and intensifying the tension between the US and Iran, who stands to gain? It is certainly not Iran; even the staunchest hardliner or religious zealot would prefer to not rule over the dust of a devastated nation. And it is certainly not the US, whose interests can be much better assured through a rapprochement with a strategically positioned and energy-rich Iran. A friendly Iran would more than help secure the stability of the neighboring states and, with certain security guarantees, would cease to be a concern as a military threat to Israel or anyone else.
Why is it, then, that while Iran has been trying so many times and in so many ways to demonstrate its openness toward a rapprochement with the US, the response has been suspiciously cold and negative? Who benefits from this arrogant defiance of common sense? It all started by the grand unified troika galloping ahead with the mask of power.
But this is not where the case ends. The neo-con gang is quickly coming to the realization that their ambitious designs for the creation of a new American empire is neither good for the United States, nor tolerated by America's allies in the West, or the rising rival powers in the East.
Had the situation both in Afghanistan and in Iraq been resolved expeditiously, the grand design for the conquest of the Middle East would have followed without delay. The evangelical crusaders have already accomplished more than they could have bargained for right here at home. Both these sources of influence are looking at the next presidential term four years away that will, more than likely, put the damper on their dreams.
That leaves us with only one remaining culprit whose mission is seemingly never-ending, and who has historically had the support, sometimes covert and sometimes explicit, of Washington, regardless of which political party has come to power. Now, with even the faintest prospects for a mediated agreement between Israel and the Palestinians, the border issues, the settlements, and the Palestinian statehood, the Ariel Sharon government is finding things not going its way. Nothing would serve the Likud regime's ambitious agendas more than a continuation of strife and hostilities in the Middle East.
As long as the United States remains militarily engaged in the region, Israel will enjoy an unquestioned level of support on all fronts, financial, military and diplomatic. This is exactly why striking at Iran's nuclear facilities, although a militarily fruitless act, will be intended to provide added fuel for the regional turmoil to further involve Iran and the United States in protracted antagonism and threats.
Any assault on Iran or Iranian targets would only benefit Israel. Can the US escape this folly that promises to be the biggest quagmire it has ever encountered? Can the US curb the pit-bull and, instead, do for a change what is best for the United States?
Threatening to attack preemptively a sovereign nation the size and significance of Iran in violation of all international norms should be taken a lot more seriously by the US media than it seems to be. A nationwide poll taken by America Online or CNN, where the participants indicate their choice of whether or not to attack or invade Iran, just as they choose which color car to buy next, brings the realities of life and death to the level of virtual realities of computer games.
Humans do suffer and die by the tens of thousands, as well as those American men and women sent to fight an enemy created in the domain of virtual reality by pundits with their own ulterior motives, those whose own blood or that of their children is never spilled in their pursuits of grandeur.
May reason prevail.
Kam Zarrabi is a graduate of the University of California, Los Angeles, in geology, exploration geophysics, advanced management, economics. He was director general, Ministry of Economy, Iran, and chief of the Bureau of Mines 1969-74. He undertakes research in humanities: philosophy, cultural anthropology, archaeology, comparative religion, cross-cultural studies and foreign policy issues, and is a consultant in exploration geology for various mining interests, as well as a freelance writer and lecturer on foreign affairs, with emphasis on the Middle East.
(Copyright Kam Zarrabi, 2005)
Speaking Freely is an Asia Times Online feature that allows guest writers to have their say. Please click here if you are interested in contributing.
Israel in the Iran fray, too
(Jan 20, '05)
Once more, the heat's on Iran
(Jan 19, '05)
Street-wise Washington backs off
(Jan 13, '05)
Last edited by Alpha on Fri Feb 04, 2005 10:15 pm; edited 2 times in total | | | | Alpha | | | | Alpha | | | | Alpha | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Thu Feb 03, 2005 7:54 am Post subject: US Planning to Attack Iran for Israel as Well |
| US Planning to Attack Iran for Israel as Well:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2005/01/17/u-s-conducting-secret-missions-inside-iran.php
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Neoconservatism is a Jewish Movement
http://www.vdare.com/misc/macdonald_neoconservatism.htm
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whose War?
http://www.amconmag.com
March 24, 2003 issue
Copyright © 2003 The American Conservative
Whose War?
A neoconservative clique seeks to ensnare our country in a series of wars that are not in America's interest.
by Patrick J. Buchanan
The War Party may have gotten its war. But it has also gotten something it did not bargain for. Its membership lists and associations have been exposed and its motives challenged. In a rare moment in U.S. journalism, Tim Russert put this question directly to Richard Perle: “Can you assure American viewers ... that we're in this situation against Saddam Hussein and his removal for American security interests? And what would be the link in terms of Israel?”
Suddenly, the Israeli connection is on the table, and the War Party is not amused. Finding themselves in an unanticipated firefight, our neoconservative friends are doing what comes naturally, seeking student deferments from political combat by claiming the status of a persecuted minority group. People who claim to be writing the foreign policy of the world superpower, one would think, would be a little more manly in the schoolyard of politics. Not so.
Former Wall Street Journal editor Max Boot kicked off the campaign. When these “Buchananites toss around ‘neoconservative’—and cite names like Wolfowitz and Cohen—it sometimes sounds as if what they really mean is ‘Jewish conservative.’” Yet Boot readily concedes that a passionate attachment to Israel is a “key tenet of neoconservatism.” He also claims that the National Security Strategy of President Bush “sounds as if it could have come straight out from the pages of Commentary magazine, the neocon bible.” (For the uninitiated, Commentary, the bible in which Boot seeks divine guidance, is the monthly of the American Jewish Committee.)
David Brooks of the Weekly Standard wails that attacks based on the Israel tie have put him through personal hell: “Now I get a steady stream of anti-Semitic screeds in my e-mail, my voicemail and in my mailbox. ... Anti-Semitism is alive and thriving. It's just that its epicenter is no longer on the Buchananite Right, but on the peace-movement left.”
Washington Post columnist Robert Kagan endures his own purgatory abroad: “In London ... one finds Britain's finest minds propounding, in sophisticated language and melodious Oxbridge accents, the conspiracy theories of Pat Buchanan concerning the ‘neoconservative’ (read: Jewish) hijacking of American foreign policy.”
Lawrence Kaplan of the New Republic charges that our little magazine “has been transformed into a forum for those who contend that President Bush has become a client of ... Ariel Sharon and the ‘neoconservative war party.’”
Referencing Charles Lindbergh, he accuses Paul Schroeder, Chris Matthews, Robert Novak, Georgie Anne Geyer, Jason Vest of the Nation, and Gary Hart of implying that “members of the Bush team have been doing Israel's bidding and, by extension, exhibiting ‘dual loyalties.’” Kaplan thunders:
The real problem with such claims is not just that they are untrue. The problem is that they are toxic. Invoking the specter of dual loyalty to mute criticism and debate amounts to more than the everyday pollution of public discourse. It is the nullification of public discourse, for how can one refute accusations grounded in ethnicity? The charges are, ipso facto, impossible to disprove. And so they are meant to be.
What is going on here? Slate's Mickey Kaus nails it in the headline of his retort: “Lawrence Kaplan Plays the Anti-Semitic Card.”
What Kaplan, Brooks, Boot, and Kagan are doing is what the Rev. Jesse Jackson does when caught with some mammoth contribution from a Fortune 500 company he has lately accused of discriminating. He plays the race card. So, too, the neoconservatives are trying to fend off critics by assassinating their character and impugning their motives.
Indeed, it is the charge of “anti-Semitism” itself that is toxic. For this venerable slander is designed to nullify public discourse by smearing and intimidating foes and censoring and blacklisting them and any who would publish them. Neocons say we attack them because they are Jewish. We do not. We attack them because their warmongering threatens our country, even as it finds a reliable echo in Ariel Sharon.
And this time the boys have cried “wolf” once too often. It is not working. As Kaus notes, Kaplan's own New Republic carries Harvard professor Stanley Hoffman. In writing of the four power centers in this capital that are clamoring for war, Hoffman himself describes the fourth thus:
And, finally, there is a loose collection of friends of Israel, who believe in the identity of interests between the Jewish state and the United States. … These analysts look on foreign policy through the lens of one dominant concern: Is it good or bad for Israel? Since that nation's founding in 1948, these thinkers have never been in very good odor at the State Department, but now they are well ensconced in the Pentagon, around such strategists as Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle and Douglas Feith.
“If Stanley Hoffman can say this,” asks Kaus, “why can't Chris Matthews?” Kaus also notes that Kaplan somehow failed to mention the most devastating piece tying the neoconservatives to Sharon and his Likud Party.
In a Feb. 9 front-page article in the Washington Post, Robert Kaiser quotes a senior U.S. official as saying, “The Likudniks are really in charge now.” Kaiser names Perle, Wolfowitz, and Feith as members of a pro-Israel network inside the administration and adds David Wurmser of the Defense Department and Elliott Abrams of the National Security Council. (Abrams is the son-in-law of Norman Podhoretz, editor emeritus of Commentary, whose magazine has for decades branded critics of Israel as anti-Semites.)
Noting that Sharon repeatedly claims a “special closeness” to the Bushites, Kaiser writes, “For the first time a U.S. administration and a Likud government are pursuing nearly identical policies.” And a valid question is: how did this come to be, and while it is surely in Sharon's interest, is it in America's interest?
This is a time for truth. For America is about to make a momentous decision: whether to launch a series of wars in the Middle East that could ignite the Clash of Civilizations against which Harvard professor Samuel Huntington has warned, a war we believe would be a tragedy and a disaster for this Republic. To avert this war, to answer the neocon smears, we ask that our readers review their agenda as stated in their words. Sunlight is the best disinfectant. As Al Smith used to say, “Nothing un-American can live in the sunlight.”
We charge that a cabal of polemicists and public officials seek to ensnare our country in a series of wars that are not in America's interests. We charge them with colluding with Israel to ignite those wars and destroy the Oslo Accords. We charge them with deliberately damaging U.S. relations with every state in the Arab world that defies Israel or supports the Palestinian people's right to a homeland of their own. We charge that they have alienated friends and allies all over the Islamic and Western world through their arrogance, hubris, and bellicosity.
Not in our lifetimes has America been so isolated from old friends. Far worse, President Bush is being lured into a trap baited for him by these neocons that could cost him his office and cause America to forfeit years of peace won for us by the sacrifices of two generations in the Cold War.
They charge us with anti-Semitism—i.e., a hatred of Jews for their faith, heritage, or ancestry. False. The truth is, those hurling these charges harbor a “passionate attachment” to a nation not our own that causes them to subordinate the interests of their own country and to act on an assumption that, somehow, what's good for Israel is good for America.
The Neoconservatives
Who are the neoconservatives? The first generation were ex-liberals, socialists, and Trotskyites, boat-people from the McGovern revolution who rafted over to the GOP at the end of conservatism's long march to power with Ronald Reagan in 1980.
A neoconservative, wrote Kevin Phillips back then, is more likely to be a magazine editor than a bricklayer. Today, he or she is more likely to be a resident scholar at a public policy institute such as the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) or one of its clones like the Center for Security Policy or the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA). As one wag writes, a neocon is more familiar with the inside of a think tank than an Abrams tank.
Almost none came out of the business world or military, and few if any came out of the Goldwater campaign. The heroes they invoke are Woodrow Wilson, FDR, Harry Truman, Martin Luther King, and Democratic Senators Henry “Scoop” Jackson (Wash.) and Pat Moynihan (N.Y.).
All are interventionists who regard Stakhanovite support of Israel as a defining characteristic of their breed. Among their luminaries are Jeane Kirkpatrick, Bill Bennett, Michael Novak, and James Q. Wilson.
Their publications include the Weekly Standard, Commentary, the New Republic, National Review, and the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal. Though few in number, they wield disproportionate power through control of the conservative foundations and magazines, through their syndicated columns, and by attaching themselves to men of power.
Beating the War Drums
When the Cold War ended, these neoconservatives began casting about for a new crusade to give meaning to their lives. On Sept. 11, their time came. They seized on that horrific atrocity to steer America's rage into all-out war to destroy their despised enemies, the Arab and Islamic “rogue states” that have resisted U.S. hegemony and loathe Israel.
The War Party's plan, however, had been in preparation far in advance of 9/11. And when President Bush, after defeating the Taliban, was looking for a new front in the war on terror, they put their precooked meal in front of him. Bush dug into it.
Before introducing the script-writers of America's future wars, consider the rapid and synchronized reaction of the neocons to what happened after that fateful day.
On Sept. 12, Americans were still in shock when Bill Bennett told CNN that we were in “a struggle between good and evil,” that the Congress must declare war on “militant Islam,” and that “overwhelming force” must be used. Bennett cited Lebanon, Libya, Syria, Iraq, Iran, and China as targets for attack. Not, however, Afghanistan, the sanctuary of Osama's terrorists. How did Bennett know which nations must be smashed before he had any idea who attacked us?
The Wall Street Journal immediately offered up a specific target list, calling for U.S. air strikes on “terrorist camps in Syria, Sudan, Libya, and Algeria, and perhaps even in parts of Egypt.” Yet, not one of Bennett's six countries, nor one of these five, had anything to do with 9/11.
On Sept. 15, according to Bob Woodward's Bush at War, “Paul Wolfowitz put forth military arguments to justify a U.S. attack on Iraq rather than Afghanistan.” Why Iraq? Because, Wolfowitz argued in the War Cabinet, while “attacking Afghanistan would be uncertain … Iraq was a brittle oppressive regime that might break easily. It was doable.”
On Sept. 20, forty neoconservatives sent an open letter to the White House instructing President Bush on how the war on terror must be conducted. Signed by Bennett, Podhoretz, Kirkpatrick, Perle, Kristol, and Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer, the letter was an ultimatum. To retain the signers’ support, the president was told, he must target Hezbollah for destruction, retaliate against Syria and Iran if they refuse to sever ties to Hezbollah, and overthrow Saddam. Any failure to attack Iraq, the signers warned Bush, “will constitute an early and perhaps decisive surrender in the war on international terrorism.”
Here was a cabal of intellectuals telling the Commander-in-Chief, nine days after an attack on America, that if he did not follow their war plans, he would be charged with surrendering to terror. Yet, Hezbollah had nothing to do with 9/11. What had Hezbollah done? Hezbollah had humiliated Israel by driving its army out of Lebanon.
President Bush had been warned. He was to exploit the attack of 9/11 to launch a series of wars on Arab regimes, none of which had attacked us. All, however, were enemies of Israel. “Bibi” Netanyahu, the former Prime Minister of Israel, like some latter-day Citizen Genet, was ubiquitous on American television, calling for us to crush the “Empire of Terror.” The “Empire,” it turns out, consisted of Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran, Iraq, and “the Palestinian enclave.”
Nasty as some of these regimes and groups might be, what had they done to the United States?
The War Party seemed desperate to get a Middle East war going before America had second thoughts. Tom Donnelly of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) called for an immediate invasion of Iraq. “Nor need the attack await the deployment of half a million troops. … [T]he larger challenge will be occupying Iraq after the fighting is over,” he wrote.
Donnelly was echoed by Jonah Goldberg of National Review: “The United States needs to go to war with Iraq because it needs to go to war with someone in the region and Iraq makes the most sense.”
Goldberg endorsed “the Ledeen Doctrine” of ex-Pentagon official Michael Ledeen, which Goldberg described thus: “Every ten years or so, the United States needs to pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show we mean business.” (When the French ambassador in London, at a dinner party, asked why we should risk World War III over some “shitty little country”—meaning Israel—Goldberg's magazine was not amused.)
Ledeen, however, is less frivolous. In The War Against the Terror Masters, he identifies the exact regimes America must destroy:
First and foremost, we must bring down the terror regimes, beginning with the Big Three: Iran, Iraq, and Syria. And then we have to come to grips with Saudi Arabia. … Once the tyrants in Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Saudi Arabia have been brought down, we will remain engaged. …We have to ensure the fulfillment of the democratic revolution. … Stability is an unworthy American mission, and a misleading concept to boot. We do not want stability in Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and even Saudi Arabia; we want things to change. The real issue is not whether, but how to destabilize.
Rejecting stability as “an unworthy American mission,” Ledeen goes on to define America's authentic “historic mission”:
Creative destruction is our middle name, both within our society and abroad. We tear down the old order every day, from business to science, literature, art, architecture, and cinema to politics and the law. Our enemies have always hated this whirlwind of energy and creativity which menaces their traditions (whatever they may be) and shames them for their inability to keep pace. … [W]e must destroy them to advance our historic mission.
Passages like this owe more to Leon Trotsky than to Robert Taft and betray a Jacobin streak in neoconservatism that cannot be reconciled with any concept of true conservatism.
To the Weekly Standard, Ledeen's enemies list was too restrictive. We must not only declare war on terror networks and states that harbor terrorists, said the Standard, we should launch wars on “any group or government inclined to support or sustain others like them in the future.”
Robert Kagan and William Kristol were giddy with excitement at the prospect of Armageddon. The coming war “is going to spread and engulf a number of countries. … It is going to resemble the clash of civilizations that everyone has hoped to avoid. … [I]t is possible that the demise of some ‘moderate’ Arab regimes may be just round the corner.”
Norman Podhoretz in Commentary even outdid Kristol's Standard, rhapsodizing that we should embrace a war of civilizations, as it is George W. Bush's mission “to fight World War IV—the war against militant Islam.” By his count, the regimes that richly deserve to be overthrown are not confined to the three singled-out members of the axis of evil (Iraq, Iran, North Korea). At a minimum, the axis should extend to Syria and Lebanon and Libya, as well as ‘“friends” of America like the Saudi royal family and Egypt's Hosni Mubarak, along with the Palestinian Authority. Bush must reject the “timorous counsels” of the “incorrigibly cautious Colin Powell,” wrote Podhoretz, and “find the stomach to impose a new political culture on the defeated” Islamic world. As the war against al-Qaeda required that we destroy the Taliban, Podhoretz wrote,
We may willy-nilly find ourselves forced … to topple five or six or seven more tyrannies in the Islamic world (including that other sponsor of terrorism, Yasir Arafat's Palestinian Authority). I can even [imagine] the turmoil of this war leading to some new species of an imperial mission for America, whose purpose would be to oversee the emergence of successor governments in the region more amenable to reform and modernization than the despotisms now in place. … I can also envisage the establishment of some kind of American protectorate over the oil fields of Saudi Arabia, as we more and more come to wonder why 7,000 princes should go on being permitted to exert so much leverage over us and everyone else.
Podhoretz credits Eliot Cohen with the phrase “World War IV.” Bush was shortly thereafter seen carrying about a gift copy of Cohen's book that celebrates civilian mastery of the military in times of war, as exhibited by such leaders as Winston Churchill and David Ben Gurion.
A list of the Middle East regimes that Podhoretz, Bennett, Ledeen, Netanyahu, and the Wall Street Journal regard as targets for destruction thus includes Algeria, Libya, Egypt, Sudan, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas, the Palestinian Authority, and “militant Islam.”
Cui Bono? For whose benefit these endless wars in a region that holds nothing vital to America save oil, which the Arabs must sell us to survive? Who would benefit from a war of civilizations between the West and Islam?
Answer: one nation, one leader, one party. Israel, Sharon, Likud.
Indeed, Sharon has been everywhere the echo of his acolytes in America. In February 2003, Sharon told a delegation of Congressmen that, after Saddam's regime is destroyed, it is of “vital importance” that the United States disarm Iran, Syria, and Libya.
“We have a great interest in shaping the Middle East the day after” the war on Iraq, Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz told the Conference of Major American Jewish Organizations. After U.S. troops enter Baghdad, the United States must generate “political, economic, diplomatic pressure” on Tehran, Mofaz admonished the American Jews.
Are the neoconservatives concerned about a war on Iraq bringing down friendly Arab governments? Not at all. They would welcome it.
“Mubarak is no great shakes,” says Richard Perle of the President of Egypt. “Surely we can do better than Mubarak.” Asked about the possibility that a war on Iraq—which he predicted would be a “cakewalk”—might upend governments in Egypt and Saudi Arabia, former UN ambassador Ken Adelman told Joshua Micah Marshall of Washington Monthly, “All the better if you ask me.”
On July 10, 2002, Perle invited a former aide to Lyndon LaRouche named Laurent Murawiec to address the Defense Policy Board. In a briefing that startled Henry Kissinger, Murawiec named Saudi Arabia as “the kernel of evil, the prime mover, the most dangerous opponent” of the United States.
Washington should give Riyadh an ultimatum, he said. Either you Saudis “prosecute or isolate those involved in the terror chain, including the Saudi intelligence services,” and end all propaganda against Israel, or we invade your country, seize your oil fields, and occupy Mecca.
In closing his PowerPoint presentation, Murawiec offered a “Grand Strategy for the Middle East.” “Iraq is the tactical pivot, Saudi Arabia the strategic pivot, Egypt the prize.” Leaked reports of Murawiec's briefing did not indicate if anyone raised the question of how the Islamic world might respond to U.S. troops tramping around the grounds of the Great Mosque.
What these neoconservatives seek is to conscript American blood to make the world safe for Israel. They want the peace of the sword imposed on Islam and American soldiers to die if necessary to impose it.
Washington Times editor at large Arnaud de Borchgrave calls this the “Bush-Sharon Doctrine.” “Washington's ‘Likudniks,’” he writes, “have been in charge of U.S. policy in the Middle East since Bush was sworn into office.”
The neocons seek American empire, and Sharonites seek hegemony over the Middle East. The two agendas coincide precisely. And though neocons insist that it was Sept. 11 that made the case for war on Iraq and militant Islam, the origins of their war plans go back far before.
“Securing the Realm”
The principal draftsman is Richard Perle, an aide to Sen. Scoop Jackson, who, in 1970, was overheard on a federal wiretap discussing classified information from the National Security Council with the Israeli Embassy. In Jews and American Politics, published in 1974, Stephen D. Isaacs wrote, “Richard Perle and Morris Amitay command a tiny army of Semitophiles on Capitol Hill and direct Jewish power in behalf of Jewish interests.” In 1983, the New York Times reported that Perle had taken substantial payments from an Israeli weapons manufacturer.
In 1996, with Douglas Feith and David Wurmser, Perle wrote “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm,” for Prime Minister Netanyahu. In it, Perle, Feith, and Wurmser urged Bibi to ditch the Oslo Accords of the assassinated Yitzak Rabin and adopt a new aggressive strategy:
Israel can shape its strategic environment, in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria. This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq—an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right—as a means of foiling Syria's regional ambitions. Jordan has challenged Syria's regional ambitions recently by suggesting the restoration of the Hashemites in Iraq.
In the Perle-Feith-Wurmser strategy, Israel's enemy remains Syria, but the road to Damascus runs through Baghdad. Their plan, which urged Israel to re-establish “the principle of preemption,” has now been imposed by Perle, Feith, Wurmser & Co. on the United States.
In his own 1997 paper, “A Strategy for Israel,” Feith pressed Israel to re-occupy “the areas under Palestinian Authority control,” though “the price in blood would be high.”
Wurmser, as a resident scholar at AEI, drafted joint war plans for Israel and the United States “to fatally strike the centers of radicalism in the Middle East. Israel and the United States should … broaden the conflict to strike fatally, not merely disarm, the centers of radicalism in the region—the regimes of Damascus, Baghdad, Tripoli, Tehran, and Gaza. That would establish the recognition that fighting either the United States or Israel is suicidal.”
He urged both nations to be on the lookout for a crisis, for as he wrote, “Crises can be opportunities.” Wurmser published his U.S.-Israeli war plan on Jan. 1, 2001, nine months before 9/11.
About the Perle-Feith-Wurmser cabal, author Michael Lind writes:
The radical Zionist right to which Perle and Feith belong is small in number but it has become a significant force in Republican policy-making circles. It is a recent phenomenon, dating back to the late 1970s and 1980s, when many formerly Democratic Jewish intellectuals joined the broad Reagan coalition. While many of these hawks speak in public about global crusades for democracy, the chief concern of many such “neo-conservatives” is the power and reputation of Israel.
Right down the smokestack.
Perle today chairs the Defense Policy Board, Feith is an Undersecretary of Defense, and Wurmser is special assistant to the Undersecretary of State for Arms Control, John Bolton, who dutifully echoes the Perle-Sharon line. According to the Israeli daily newspaper Ha'aretz, in late February,
U.S. Undersecretary of State John Bolton said in meetings with Israeli officials … that he has no doubt America will attack Iraq and that it will be necessary to deal with threats from Syria, Iran and North Korea afterwards.
On Jan. 26, 1998, President Clinton received a letter imploring him to use his State of the Union address to make removal of Saddam Hussein's regime the “aim of American foreign policy” and to use military action because “diplomacy is failing.” Were Clinton to do that, the signers pledged, they would “offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor.” Signing the pledge were Elliott Abrams, Bill Bennett, John Bolton, Robert Kagan, William Kristol, Richard Perle, and Paul Wolfowitz. Four years before 9/11, the neocons had Baghdad on their minds.
The Wolfowitz Doctrine
In 1992, a startling document was leaked from the office of Paul Wolfowitz at the Pentagon. Barton Gellman of the Washington Post called it a “classified blueprint intended to help ‘set the nation's direction for the next century.’” The Wolfowitz Memo called for a permanent U.S. military presence on six continents to deter all “potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role.” Containment, the victorious strategy of the Cold War, was to give way to an ambitious new strategy designed to “establish and protect a new order.”
Though the Wolfowitz Memo was denounced and dismissed in 1992, it became American policy in the 33-page National Security Strategy (NSS) issued by President Bush on Sept. 21, 2002. Washington Post reporter Tim Reich describes it as a “watershed in U.S. foreign policy” that “reverses the fundamental principles that have guided successive Presidents for more than 50 years: containment and deterrence.”
Andrew Bacevich, a professor at Boston University, writes of the NSS that he marvels at “its fusion of breathtaking utopianism with barely disguised machtpolitik. It reads as if it were the product not of sober, ostensibly conservative Republicans but of an unlikely collaboration between Woodrow Wilson and the elder Field Marshal von Moltke.”
In confronting America's adversaries, the paper declares, “We will not hesitate to act alone, if necessary, to exercise our right of self-defense by acting preemptively.” It warns any nation that seeks to acquire power to rival the United States that it will be courting war with the United States:
[T]he president has no intention of allowing any nation to catch up with the huge lead the United States has opened since the fall of the Soviet Union more than a decade ago. … Our forces will be strong enough to dissuade potential adversaries from pursuing a military buildup in hopes of surpassing or equaling the power of the United States.
America must reconcile herself to an era of “nation-building on a grand scale, and with no exit strategy,” Robert Kagan instructs. But this Pax Americana the neocons envision bids fair to usher us into a time of what Harry Elmer Barnes called “permanent war for permanent peace.”
The Munich Card
As President Bush was warned on Sept. 20, 2001, that he will be indicted for “a decisive surrender” in the war on terror should he fail to attack Iraq, he is also on notice that pressure on Israel is forbidden. For as the neoconservatives have played the anti-Semitic card, they will not hesitate to play the Munich card as well. A year ago, when Bush called on Sharon to pull out of the West Bank, Sharon fired back that he would not let anyone do to Israel what Neville Chamberlain had done to the Czechs. Frank Gaffney of the Center for Security Policy immediately backed up Ariel Sharon:
With each passing day, Washington appears to view its principal Middle Eastern ally's conduct as inconvenient—in much the same way London and Paris came to see Czechoslovakia's resistance to Hitler's offers of peace in exchange for Czech lands.
When former U.S. NATO commander Gen. George Jouwlan said the United States may have to impose a peace on Israel and the Palestinians, he, too, faced the charge of appeasement. Wrote Gaffney,
They would, presumably, go beyond Britain and France's sell-out of an ally at Munich in 1938. The “impose a peace” school is apparently prepared to have us play the role of Hitler's Wehrmacht as well, seizing and turning over to Yasser Arafat the contemporary Sudetenland: the West Bank and Gaza Strip and perhaps part of Jerusalem as well.
Podhoretz agreed Sharon was right in the substance of what he said but called it politically unwise to use the Munich analogy.
President Bush is on notice: Should he pressure Israel to trade land for peace, the Oslo formula in which his father and Yitzak Rabin believed, he will, as was his father, be denounced as an anti-Semite and a Munich-style appeaser by both Israelis and their neoconservatives allies inside his own Big Tent.
Yet, if Bush cannot deliver Sharon there can be no peace. And if there is no peace in the Mideast there is no security for us, ever—for there will be no end to terror. As most every diplomat and journalist who travels to the region will relate, America's failure to be even-handed, our failure to rein in Sharon, our failure to condemn Israel's excesses, and our moral complicity in Israel's looting of Palestinian lands and denial of their right to self-determination sustains the anti-Americanism in the Islamic world in which terrorists and terrorism breed.
Let us conclude. The Israeli people are America's friends and have a right to peace and secure borders. We should help them secure these rights. As a nation, we have made a moral commitment, endorsed by half a dozen presidents, which Americans wish to honor, not to permit these people who have suffered much to see their country overrun and destroyed. And we must honor this commitment.
But U.S. and Israeli interests are not identical. They often collide, and when they do, U.S. interests must prevail. Moreover, we do not view the Sharon regime as “America's best friend.”
Since the time of Ben Gurion, the behavior of the Israeli regime has been Jekyll and Hyde. In the 1950s, its intelligence service, the Mossad, had agents in Egypt blow up U.S. installations to make it appear the work of Cairo, to destroy U.S. relations with the new Nasser government. During the Six Day War, Israel ordered repeated attacks on the undefended USS Liberty that killed 34 American sailors and wounded 171 and included the machine-gunning of life rafts. This massacre was neither investigated nor punished by the U.S. government in an act of national cravenness.
Though we have given Israel $20,000 for every Jewish citizen, Israel refuses to stop building the settlements that are the cause of the Palestinian intifada. Likud has dragged our good name through the mud and blood of Ramallah, ignored Bush's requests to restrain itself, and sold U.S. weapons technology to China, including the Patriot, the Phoenix air-to-air missile, and the Lavi fighter, which is based on F-16 technology. Only direct U.S. intervention blocked Israel's sale of our AWACS system.
Israel suborned Jonathan Pollard to loot our secrets and refuses to return the documents, which would establish whether or not they were sold to Moscow. When Clinton tried to broker an agreement at Wye Plantation between Israel and Arafat, Bibi Netanyahu attempted to extort, as his price for signing, release of Pollard, so he could take this treasonous snake back to Israel as a national hero.
Do the Brits, our closest allies, behave like this?
Though we have said repeatedly that we admire much of what this president has done, he will not deserve re-election if he does not jettison the neoconservatives’ agenda of endless wars on the Islamic world that serve only the interests of a country other than the one he was elected to preserve and protect.
March 24, 2003 issue
Copyright © 2003 The American Conservative
Last edited by Alpha on Tue Jan 25, 2005 10:55 am; edited 1 time in total
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iraq: A War For Israel?
By Mark Weber
The United States Invasion of Iraq in March-April 2003, and the occupation of the country since then, has cost more than a thousand American lives and many tens of billions of dollars, and has brought death to many thousands of Iraqis.
Why did President Bush decide to go to war? In whose interests was it launched?
In the months leading up to the attack, President Bush and other high-ranking US officials repeatedly warned that the threat posed to the US and world by the Baghdad regime was so grave and imminent that the United States had to act quickly to bomb, invade and occupy Iraq.
On September 28, 2002, for example, he said: "The danger to our country is grave and it is growing. The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons, is rebuilding the facilities to make more and, according to the British government, could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes after the order is given... This regime is seeking a nuclear bomb, and with fissile material could build one within a year."
On March 6, 2003, President Bush declared: "Saddam Hussein and his weapons are a direct threat to this country, to our people, and to all free people... I believe Saddam Hussein is a threat to the American people. I believe he's a threat to the neighborhood in which he lives. And I've got good evidence to believe that. He has weapons of mass destruction... The American people know that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction."
These claims were untrue. As the world now knows, Iraq had no dangerous "weapons of mass destruction," and posed no threat to the US. Moreover, alarmist suggestions that the Baghdad regime was working with the al-Qaeda terror network likewise proved to be without foundation.
So if the official reasons given for the war were untrue, why did the United States attack?
Whatever the secondary reasons for the Iraq war, the crucial factor in President Bush's decision to attack was to help Israel. With support from Israel and America's Jewish-Zionist lobby, and prodded by Jewish "neo-conservatives" holding high-level positions in his administration, President Bush — who was already fervently committed to Israel — resolved to invade and subdue one of Israel's chief regional enemies.
This is so widely understood in Washington that US Senator Ernest Hollings was moved in May 2004 to acknowledge that the US invaded Iraq "to secure Israel," and "everybody" knows it. He also identified three of the influential pro-Israel Jews in Washington who played an important role in prodding the US into war: Richard Perle, chair of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board; Paul Wolfowitz, Deputy Defense Secretary; and Charles Krauthammer, columnist and author. [1]
Hollings referred to the cowardly reluctance of his Congressional colleagues to acknowledge this truth openly, saying that "nobody is willing to stand up and say what is going on." Due to "the pressures we get politically," he added, members of Congress uncritically support Israel and its policies.
Some months before the invasion, retired four-star US Army General and former NATO Supreme Allied Commander Wesley Clark said in an interview:
"Those who favor this attack [by the US against Iraq] now will tell you candidly, and privately, that it is probably true that Saddam Hussein is no threat to the United States. But they are afraid at some point he might decide if he had a nuclear weapon to use it against Israel." [2]
Fervently Pro-Israel
President Bush's fervent support for Israel and its hardline premier is well known. He reaffirmed it, for example, in June 2002 in a major speech on the Middle East. In the view of "leading Israeli commentators," the London Times reported, the address was "so pro-Israel that it might have been written by Ariel Sharon." [3]
Condoleeza Rice, Bush's National Security Advisor, echoed the President's outlook in a May 2003 interview, saying that the "security of Israel is the key to security of the world." [4]
In an address to pro-Israel activists at the 2004 convention of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), Bush said: "The United States is strongly committed, and I am strongly committed, to the security of Israel as a vibrant Jewish state." He also told the gathering: "By defending the freedom and prosperity and security of Israel, you're also serving the cause of America." [5]
Long Range Plans
Jewish-Zionist plans for war against Iraq had been in place for years.
In mid-1996, a policy paper prepared for then-Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu outlined a grand strategy for Israel in the Middle East. Entitled "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm," it was written under the auspices of an Israeli think tank, the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies. Specifically, it called for an "effort [that] can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq, an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right..." [6]
The authors of "A Clean Break" included Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, and David Wurmser, three influential Jews who later held high-level positions in the Bush administration, 2001-2004: Perle as chair of the Defense Policy Board, Feith as Undersecretary of Defense, and Wurmser as special assistant to the Undersecretary of State for Arms Control.
The role played by Bush administration officials who are associated with two major pro-Zionist "neoconservative" research centers has come under scrutiny from The Nation, the influential public affairs weekly. [7]
The author, Jason Vest, examined the close links between the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA) and the Center for Security Policy (CSP), detailing the ties between these groups and various politicians, arms merchants, military men, wealthy pro-Israel American Jews, and Republican presidential administrations.
JINSA and CSP members, notes Vest, "have ascended to powerful government posts, where... they've managed to weave a number of issues — support for national missile defense, opposition to arms control treaties, championing of wasteful weapons systems, arms aid to Turkey and American unilateralism in general — into a hard line, with support for the Israeli right at its core... On no issue is the JINSA/CSP hard line more evident than in its relentless campaign for war — not just with Iraq, but 'total war,' as Michael Ledeen, one of the most influential JINSAns in Washington, put it... For this crew, 'regime change' by any means necessary in Iraq, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia and the Palestinian Authority is an urgent imperative."
Samuel Francis, author, editor and columnist, has also looked into the "neo-conservative" role in fomenting war. [8]
"My own answer," he wrote, "is that the lie [that a massively-armed Iraq posed a grave and imminent threat to the US] was fabricated by neo-conservatives in the administration whose first loyalty is to Israel and its interests and who wanted the United States to smash Iraq because it was the biggest potential threat to Israel in the region. They are known to have been pushing for war with Iraq since at least 1996, but they could not make an effective case for it until after Sept. 11, 2001...
"What has been happening inside the Bush administration is no less a nest of treason than the Soviet spy rings of the New Deal era, and if political reality doesn't demand its exposure, simple loyalty to the United States does."
In the aftermath of the 2001 Nine-Eleven terror attacks, ardently pro-Zionist "neo-conservatives" in the Bush administration — who for years had sought a Middle East war to bolster Israel's security in the region — exploited the tragedy to press their agenda. In this they were backed by the Israeli government, which also pressured the White House to strike Iraq.
The Jerusalem correspondent for the Guardian, the respected British daily, reported in August 2002: "Israel signalled its decision yesterday to put public pressure on President George Bush to go ahead with a military attack on Iraq, even though it believes Saddam Hussein may well retaliate by striking Israel." [9]
Three months before the US invasion, the well-informed Washington journalist Robert Novak reported that Israeli prime minister Sharon was telling American political leaders that "the greatest US assistance to Israel would be to overthrow Saddam Hussein's Iraqi regime." Moreover, added Novak, "that view is widely shared inside the Bush administration, and is a major reason why US forces today are assembling for war." [10]
Israel's spy agencies were a "full partner" with the US and Britain in producing greatly exaggerated prewar assessments of Iraq's ability to wage war, a former senior Israeli military intelligence official has acknowledged. Shlomo Bron, a brigadier general in the Israel army reserves, and a senior researcher at a major Israeli think tank, said that intelligence provided by Israel played a significant role in supporting the US and British case for making war. Israeli intelligence agencies, he said, "badly overestimated the Iraqi threat to Israel and reinforced the American and British belief that the weapons [of mass destruction] existed." [11]
For some Jewish leaders, the Iraq war is part of a long-range effort to install Israel-friendly regimes across the Middle East. Norman Podhoretz, a prominent Jewish writer and an ardent supporter of Israel, has been for years editor of Commentary, the influential Zionist monthly. In the Sept. 2002 issue he wrote: "The regimes that richly deserve to be overthrown and replaced are not confined to the three singled-out members of the axis of evil [Iraq, Iran, North Korea]. At a minimum, the axis should extend to Syria and Lebanon and Libya, as well as 'friends' of America like the Saudi royal family and Egypt's Hosni Mubarak, along with the Palestinian Authority, whether headed by Arafat or one of his henchmen."
Patrick J. Buchanan, the well-known writer and commentator, and former White House Communications director, has been blunt in identifying those who pushed for war: [12]
"We charge that a cabal of polemicists and public officials seek to ensnare our country in a series of wars that are not in America's interests. We charge them with colluding with Israel to ignite those wars and destroy the Oslo Accords. We charge them with deliberately damaging US relations with every state in the Arab world that defies Israel or supports the Palestinian people's right to a homeland of their own. We charge that they have alienated friends and allies all over the Islamic and Western world through their arrogance, hubris, and bellicosity...
"Cui Bono? For whose benefit these endless wars in a region that holds nothing vital to America save oil, which the Arabs must sell us to survive? Who would benefit from a war of civilizations between the West and Islam?
"Answer: one nation, one leader, one party. Israel, Sharon, Likud."
Uri Avnery — an award-winning Israeli journalist and author, and a three-time member of Israel's parliament — sees the Iraq war as an expression of immense Jewish influence and power. In an essay written some weeks after the US invasion, he wrote: [13]
"Who are the winners? They are the so-called neo-cons, or neo-conservatives. A compact group, almost all of whose members are Jewish. They hold the key positions in the Bush administration, as well as in the think-tanks that play an important role in formulating American policy and the ed-op pages of the influential newspapers... The immense influence of this largely Jewish group stems from its close alliance with the extreme right-wing Christian fundamentalists, who nowadays control Bush's Republican party. ...Seemingly, all this is good for Israel. America controls the world, we control America. Never before have Jews exerted such an immense influence on the center of world power."
In Britain, a veteran member of Britain's House of Commons bluntly declared in May 2003 that Jews had taken control of America's foreign policy, and had succeeded in pushing the US into war. "A Jewish cabal have taken over the government in the United States and formed an unholy alliance with fundamentalist Christians," said Tam Dalyell, a Labour party deputy and the longest-serving House member. "There is far too much Jewish influence in the United States," he added. [14]
Summary
For many years now, American presidents of both parties have been staunchly committed to Israel and its security. This entrenched policy is an expression of the Jewish-Zionist grip on America's political and cultural life. It was fervent support for Israel — shared by President Bush, high-ranking administration officials and nearly the entire US Congress — that proved crucial in the decision to invade and subdue one of Israel's greatest regional enemies.
While the unprovoked US invasion of Iraq may have helped Israel, just as those who wanted and planned for the war had hoped, it has been a calamity for America and the world. It has cost tens of thousands of lives and many tens of billions of dollars. Around the world, it has generated unmatched distrust and hostility toward the US. In Arab and Muslim countries, it has fueled intense hatred of the United States, and has brought many new recruits to the ranks of anti-American terrorists.
Americans have already paid a high price for their nation's commitment to Israel. We will pay an ever higher price — not just in dollars or international prestige, but in the lives of young men squandered for the interests of a foreign state — until the Jewish-Zionist hold on US political life is finally broken.
Notes
Remarks by Ernest F. Hollings, May 20, 2004. Congressional Record — Senate, May 20, 2004, pages S5921-S5925.
The Guardian (London), August 20, 2002.
R. Dunn, "Sharon Could Have Written Speech," The Times (London), June 26, 2002.
A. S. Lewin, "Israel's Security is Key to Security of Rest of World," Jewish Press (Brooklyn, NY), May 14, 2003. Rice's interview with the Israeli daily Yediot Aharnonot is quoted.
Bush address to AIPAC convention, Washington, DC, May 18, 2004.
Text posted at: www.israeleconomy.org/strat1.htm See also: B. Whitaker, "Playing Skittles with Saddam," The Guardian (London), Sept. 3, 2002.
J. Vest, "The Men From JINSA and CSP," The Nation, Sept. 2, 2002.
S. Francis, "Weapons of Mass Deception: Somebody Lied," column of Feb. 6, 2004.
Jonathan Steele, "Israel Puts Pressure on US to Strike Iraq," The Guardian (London), August 17, 2002.
Robert Novak, "Sharon's War?," column of Dec. 26, 2002.
L. King, "Ex-General Says Israel Inflated Iraqi Threat," Los Angeles Times, Dec. 5, 2003.
P. J. Buchanan, "Whose War?," The American Conservative, March 24, 2003.
Uri Avnery, "The Night After," CounterPunch, April 10, 2003.
F. Nelson, "Anger Over Dalyell's 'Jewish Cabal' Slur," The Scotsman (Edinburgh), May 5, 2003; M. White, "Dalyell Steps Up Attack On Levy," The Guardian (London), May 6, 2003.
#2018 December 2004
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
About the author
Mark Weber is director of the Institute for Historical Review. He studied history at the University of Illinois (Chicago), the University of Munich, Portland State University and Indiana University (M.A., 1977). For nine years he served as editor of the IHR's Journal of Historical Review.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This essay, and others in this series, are available in handy leaflet format, ideal for wide distribution. They can be ordered, postpaid, at these prices:
10 copies, $2.00 :: 50 copies, $7.50 :: 100 copies or more, 10 cents each.
Institute for Historical Review
P.O. Box 2739 — Newport Beach, CA 92659 — USA
Last edited by Alpha on Thu Feb 03, 2005 1:43 pm; edited 2 times in total | | | | Alpha | | | | Alpha | | | | Alpha | | | | Alpha | | | | | ©2002-2009 WarWithoutEnd.co.uk |
