| Author | Message | | Alpha | | Posted: Wed May 17, 2006 7:17 pm Post subject: 'Iraq War Conceived in Israel' author on Karen Kwiatkowski's |
| Pro-Israel (AIPAC) lobby pushing hard for US to attack Iran:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2006/06/08/the-sun-never-sets-on-aipac.php
Authors of Israel Lobby Paper Get Warm Reception at Military College:
http://mondoweiss.observer.com/2006/06/authors-of-israel-lobby-pape...
Olbermann Disses Mearsheimer and Walt Critique (Dr. Stephen Sniegoski mentioned as well):
http://kurtnimmo.com/?p=412
Zionists manipulating public opinion to get US to attack Iran for Israel:
http://representativepress.blogspot.com/2006/06/manipulating-public-opinion.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Access the video link at the following URL:
Must watch/must listen video clip with Dr. Stephen Sniegoski:
http://kurtnimmo.com/?p=400
The 'divide and conquer' agenda is right in accordance with the Zionist plan (translated by Israeli Oded Yinon) for the Middle East which Dr. Stephen Sniegoski mentions in his 'The War on Iraq:
Conceived in Israel' article via the following URL:
http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/snieg_conc1.htm
Israeli Paper/Think Tank Call for Civil War in Iraq :
http://www.tpmcafe.com/node/30145
Dr. Stephen Sniegoski was on Karen Kwiatkowski's radio broadcast (for the Republic Broadcasting Network) this past Saturday (May 20th, 2006) as such can be listened to via clicking on the May 20th, 2006 broadcast link at the following URL:
http://mp3.rbnlive.com/Karen06.html
Professor Kevin MacDonald's 'Thinking about Neoconservatism' and 'Neoconservatism' as Jewish Movement' academic write-ups were mentioned by the initial caller to Karen Kwiatkowski and Dr. Stephen Sniegoski on her program for May 20th, 2006 which can be accessed via the above link for her program archive:
Scroll down to the 'Thinking about Neoconservatism' article link at the following message thread URL:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2005/04/06/neoconservatism-as-a-jewish-movement.php
Karen Kwiatkowski had an excellent interview via the following URL:
http://video.csupomona.edu/HotTalk/KarenKwiatkowski-245.asx
Karen Kwiatkowski was also mentioned in the following 'The Factory' article:
'The Lie Factory':
http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2004/01/12_405.html
Office of Special Plans at work again this time on Iran intelligence:
Pentagon confirms Iranian directorate as officials raise new concerns about war
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Pentagon_confirms_Iranian_directorate_as_intelligence_0615.html
Karen Kwiatkowski also wrote the following 'Open Door Policy' article which conveyed how Israeli Generals would walk to JINSA/PNAC Neocon Israel firster Douglas Feith's office at the Pentagon like they owned the place (Feith is also shown at the top of http://www.nowarforisrael.com ):
http://www.amconmag.com/2004_01_19/article1.html
Karen Kwiatkowski was also mentioned in James Bamford's 'A Pretext for War' book:
From: "Stephen Sniegoski"
To: "Sniegoski, Stephen"
Subject: Karen Kwiatkowski Radio Program (Correction)
Date: Fri, 12 May 2006 12:14:33 -0400
Friends,
Karen Kwiatkowski Radio Program (Correction)
A correction here. It was the Office of Special Plans (not planning) that pushed the neocon propaganda. Sorry for the brain malfunction. A friend corrected it.
Karen Kwiatkowski Radio Program (Correction)
I will be on Karen Kwiatkowski's radio program "American Forum" on Saturday, May 20 from 9-11 PM Eastern Time. It is broadcast on the Internet http://www.rbnlive.com/listen.html (and archived) As you probably know, Karen Kwiatkowski provided the early eye-witness accounts of the Office of Special Plans--the neocon propaganda unit in the Pentagon that helped to push the US into the war on Iraq. At the time, she was a USAF lieutenant-colonel working at the Pentagon's Near East/South Asia bureau. Kwiatkowski has a Ph.D. in World Politics, with a background in intelligence--she also worked with the National Security Agency while in the military.
Kwiatkowski left NESA in February, 2003 and retired from the Air Force the following month, after 25 years of military service Since that time she has been writing about what she experienced at the Pentagon as well as commenting on more general topics concerning politics and foreign policy (regularly for LewRockwell.com). She is obviously a strong critic of the war agenda in the Middle East.
I will be talking on the neocon-Israel role in the Iraq war and current developments with Iran. I think it should be an interesting show.
Steve Sniegoski
Republican Broadcasting Network American Forum w/Karen Kwiatkowski
http://www.rbnlive.com/listen.html
Also short-wave radio frequency 5.050
Saturday, May 20
8-10 PM Central Time
9-11 PM Eastern Time
If you live in another time zone, you will have to make your own calculations. The radio programs are also archived for future listening. If you listen to the live broadcast, the Call-in Number is 800-313-9443
From: Sniegoski, Stephen
Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 9:11 AM
Subject: My Second Mearsheimer-Walt Article
Friends,
My Second Mearsheimer-Walt Article
I have written another piece on the Mearsheimer and Walt "Israel Lobby" essay controversy. My new article is at The Last Ditch website: "The second wave against Mearsheimer and Walt: A well-tempered smother-out as a new war looms"
http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/snieg_mear_walt_2.htm
I am including a portion of my article here and hope that you will go to the site for the remainder.
The second wave against Mearsheimer and Walt: A well-tempered smother-out
as a new war looms
By Stephen J. Sniegoski
The initial reaction to John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt's essay "The Israel Lobby" consisted of a relentless barrage of vituperative insults, smears, character assassination, misrepresentations, and other inflammatory rhetoric that condemned the essay in toto. In large part, the vicious pillorying of the piece came from members of the Israel lobby denying their own power and even existence. Presumably, the purpose of that approach was to intimidate anyone from ever daring to investigate the subject. But the effect of the venomous verbal bombardment also unintentionally illustrated the absolute correctness of the essay's claim about the lobby's power to suppress.
Since that initial period a more moderate tone has emerged in the responses, which in many cases concede a substantial portion of the points presented by Mearsheimer and Walt. Nonetheless, despite a general improvement in substance as well as tone, the more temperate responses have tended to downplay the actual value of the essay and the significance of the rabid attacks that initially accompanied it. This more recent approach to the "Israel Lobby" study represents a variant of what Harry Elmer Barnes, the great revisionist historian of the two world wars, described as the smother-out approach. At best, the newer responses divert attention to peripheral issues — was the essay properly nuanced? was the issue of the Israel lobby placed in proper context? — rather than accept and emphasize the significance of the essay's central thesis and current relevance. In short, the essential need to apply the message of the study to current American Middle East policy — namely, the move on Iran that is being spearheaded by Israel and its lobby — receives minimal attention.
Continued: http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/snieg_mear_walt_2.htm
Additional material by Dr. Sniegoski is included at the following URLs (scroll down to such at both)::
"Hawkish Israeli Lobby Wants War with Iran!" :
http://baltimore.indymedia.org/newswire/display/12448/index.php
US Middle East policy Motivated by pro-Israel lobby (scroll down to the Pro-Israel lobby under attack' UPI article at the following message thread URL):
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2006/03/17/u-s-middle-east-policy-motivated-by-pro-israel-lobby.php
JINSA Israel firsters: IRAQ DOWN, IRAN STILL TO GO:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2005/04/06/jinsa-israel-firsters-iraq-down-iran-left-to-go.php
Steppingstone to war with Iran (which will be for Israel as well):
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=8914
The following AP article seems to conveys the 'divide and conquer' (creating ethnic strife/civil war) agenda that the Zionists are using in the Middle East and which has been discussed on this message thread:
Iran: U.S. will fail to spark unrest
By NASSER KARIMI, Associated Press Writer
2 hours, 20 minutes ago
Iran's supreme leader said Sunday the United States would fail to provoke ethnic strife in the Islamic republic after several days of protests over a cartoon that insulted the country's largest minority.
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei also said in a speech broadcast by state-run television that "trying to provoke ethnic and religious unrest is the last desperate shot by enemies."
He referred to a Bush administration request to Congress for $75 million to promote democracy in Iran, saying: "Enemies of the Iranian nation have earlier announced that they have allocated some money for this purpose."
Earlier, hundreds of Azeris demonstrated in front of the Iranian parliament to protest the cartoon, which was published by a state-owned newspaper two weeks ago.
"Coward legislators, support the Azeris!" chanted the protesters, who urged parliament to punish those who published the cartoon and release people detained in previous protests over the issue.
On Wednesday, the government closed the newspaper and detained its chief editor and cartoonist for publishing the drawing, which showed a cockroach speaking Azeri.
Azeris, a Turkic ethnic group, are Iran's largest minority, making up about a quarter of Iran's 70 million people, dominated by ethnic Persians. Azeris speak a Turkic language shared by their brethren in neighboring Azerbaijan.
Khamenei paid tribute to the role of Azeris in the 1979 revolution that brought Islamic clerics to power. He said Iran's Azeri region was "was the axis of the (1979) revolution" and that trying to provoke unrest there showed "the folly of the enemies."
Following Azeri protests in the northwestern city of Tabriz and other towns, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad last week accused the United States of seeking to provoke ethnic tensions in Iran.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Former CIA Analyst Says Iran Strike Set For June Or July:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2006/06/02/former-cia-analyst-says-iran-strike-set-for-june-or-july.php
Laura Catches George With Condi - Moves To Hotel?:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2006/06/02/laura-catches-george-with-condi-moves-to-hotel.php
R.Dreyfuss: Cheney's control of US govt -- The enforcers:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2006/05/27/r-dreyfuss-cheney-s-control-of-us-govt-the-enforcers.php
Study Alleging Dominant Influence of Israeli Lobby Sparks Heated Fallout:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2006/05/25/study-alleging-dominant-influence-of-israeli-lobby-sparks-he.php
Scroll down to the 'Comments' section of the following blog entry:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2005/09/13/michael-kinsley-editoria_n_7284.html
US Support for Israel PRIMARY MOTIVATION for tragic World Trade Center attacks in 1993 and on 9/11 as well:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2005/08/05/the-gorilla-in-the-room-is-us-support-for-israel.php
Last edited by Alpha on Sat Jun 17, 2006 1:54 am; edited 30 times in total | |  | | Alpha | | Posted: Thu May 18, 2006 1:00 am Post subject: US Spells Out Plan to Bomb Iran for Israel |
| US Spells Out Plan to Bomb Iran for Israel
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2006/05/17/us-spells-out-plan-to-bomb-iran-for-israel.php
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Jeff Blankfort" <jblankfort@earthlink.net>
Date: Tue, 30 May 2006 20:08:35 -0700
Subject: Israel says war on Iraq would benefit the region
There are those like Professors Stephen Zunes and Joel Beinin and Jewish
Voice for Peace's Mitchell Plitnick, all of them based in California,
who have insisted in widely circulated articles that the notion that the
Iraq war might have been orchestrated by the neocons in Israel's behalf
is ludicrous because Iraq was no threat to Israel while ignoring
statements by Israeli officials and military men across the political
spectrum calling for the US to attack Iraq because it would benefit
Israel. This was forwarded to me today and so I am passing it on to you.
It also might cause one to ask, which is the client state, which one is
"the cop on the beat?" Note the date.
Note the date:
New York Times February 27, 2003
Israel says war on Iraq would benefit the region
By James Bennet
Israelis once believed that the Oslo agreement with the Palestinians would
usher in a new Middle East of comfortable Israeli-Arab coexistence.
With Oslo in tatters, the Israelis are now putting similar hopes in an
American war on Iraq.
Other nations may cavil, but many in Israel are so certain of the rightness
of a war on Iraq that officials are already thinking past that conflict to
urge a continued, assertive American role in the Middle East.
Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz told members of the Conference of Presidents of
Major American Jewish Organizations last week that after Iraq, the United
States should generate "political, economic, diplomatic pressure" on Iran.
"We have great interest in shaping the Middle East the day after" a war, he
said.
It may seem paradoxical that the country most vulnerable to an Iraqi attack
in case of war is most eager for that war to begin. But Israel's military
intelligence apparatus has concluded that the chances of a successful Iraqi
missile strike here during this war, while ever present, are small.
The Israeli government and military elite believe that Saddam Hussein seeks
devastating weapons but has far less capacity for mayhem than he had during
the Persian Gulf war of 1991, when his forces fired 39 Scud missiles at
Israel. The Israeli Army also believes that its own national defenses are
much improved.
Israel regards Iran and Syria as greater threats and is hoping that once
Saddam Hussein is dispensed with, the dominoes will start to tumble.
According to this hope - or evolving strategy - moderates and reformers
throughout the region would be encouraged to put new pressure on their own
governments, not excepting the Palestine Authority of Yasir Arafat.
"The shock waves emerging from post-Saddam Baghdad could have wide-ranging
effects in Tehran, Damascus, and in Ramallah," Efraim Halevy, Prime Minister
Ariel Sharon's national security adviser, said in a speech in Munich this
month.
Until recently, Mr. Halevy was the chief of the Mossad, Israel's spy agency.
He said, "We have hopes of greater stability, greater enhanced confidence
from the Persian Gulf to the Atlantic shores of Morocco."
Israelis have also suggested that that an Iraq war may salvage their economy
and even prompt the opposition Labor Party to join Mr. Sharon's coalition in
a new government of national unity.
Expressed in its broadest, vaguest terms, that theory has come in for the
sort of mockery that the idealistic vision of Oslo's effects suffered from
the right. The accusation is the same: fuzzy, wishful thinking.
Uzi Benziman, a journalist and author of a biography of Mr. Sharon, wrote in
the newspaper Haaretz, "Israel is looking for Ares, the ancient Greek god of
war, to play the part of the deus ex machina in this drama."
Referring to this "almost pagan faith," he continued, "It's still hard to
shake the feeling that what the fervency of Israeli expectations regarding
the war really attests to is despair." Opinion polls here have shown a
strong though not overwhelming majority in favor of war.
The precise mechanism for converting a war into regional stability has not
been detailed.
Mark Heller, a senior researcher at the Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies
at Tel Aviv University, said the potential engine for change would be the
example of a transformed Iraq. "It's at least conceivable that Al Jazeera
will end up showing pictures of Iraqis celebrating in the streets, in which
case people in other places - like Syria, Saudi Arabia and Egypt - are going
to start saying, `If Iraqis deserve decent government, so do we.' " Al
Jazeera is a widely watched Arab broadcast network.
Israeli officials say that only sustained American pressure can turn that
hope into reality. Mr. Mofaz warned that without continued attention to the
rest of the region, an Iraqi collapse could strengthen Iran.
As they look ahead to the aftermath of an Iraq war, Israeli officials are
also considering how the Bush administration's present diplomatic struggle
could help or hurt them. A top Israeli official predicted that after such a
war would come a fork in the road for American policy and "a battle for the
heart and mind" of President Bush.
The official said the Bush administration might try to mend relations with
Arab and European nations by wringing concessions from Israel toward the
Palestinians.
But he said it was more likely that rising American frustration with Europe
would benefit Israel. Mr. Sharon has been alarmed by the recent efforts of
the so-called quartet - the United States, the United Nations, the European
Union and Russia - to intervene in the conflict here. Mr. Sharon would much
prefer to deal only with the United States.
The top Israeli official said the quartet might prove a "casualty" of an
Iraqi war. "The idea of using the quartet as the great instrument of
resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict - there are people in Washington
who are going to say, `What do we need these people for?' " he said.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proving the Case
War, War and More War is What Bush Really Wants
By BILL CHRISTISON
Former CIA analyst
George W. Bush. "Dubya." In the media, the practice of using the W to distinguish the current president from his father is common. George Senior has two middle initials -- H and W -- but few media flacks seem to use them. Nevertheless, two beats one, and adding to the fetid miasma constantly enveloping Washington these days is the old but oft-repeated rumor about a dominating motivation of Bush Junior -- that he would do almost anything to assure that his own reputation surpasses that of his father in historians' future rankings of presidents. It seems to me that we might in common courtesy push him a little more quickly than might otherwise occur, at least in the name game, toward equality with (though not superiority over) his father -- by giving him the honor and dignity of two middle initials. We should decree that henceforth the son shall be known as George P. W. ("Perpetual War") Bush. Instead of just "Dubya," how about calling him "Pee Dubya?"
Is it unfair to label the current president "Pee Dubya?" No, it is not. Let's look at a little background. Back on March 16, 2006, the White House published a new document, The National Security Strategy of the United States of America. This replaces or, more properly, supplements an earlier document with the same title that the White House put out in 2002.
Most people in the U.S. and elsewhere did not pay much attention to the new version of this document, because it is loaded with clichés and much of it reads like the propaganda put out by far too many current Bush administration spokesmen these days. It is not an inspired piece of writing. The first two pages contain a cover letter from George W. Bush to "My fellow Americans" that seems particularly propagandistic. In these two pages, the words "democracy" or "democratic" appear seven times; the words "freedom" or "free," eleven times.
But the document is nonetheless important. Perhaps the major difference between the 2006 and the 2002 version is the greater bluntness with which the new version proclaims that the U.S. is in a struggle that will last for many years and defines who our alleged principal enemy is. Several recent speeches of Bush had already presaged this bluntness, but the new White House document puts the same thoughts into the most prestigious and official foreign policy pronouncement that the present administration makes public.
In the very beginning of the paper, immediately following Bush's covering letter, the "ultimate goal" of the U.S. is described as "ending tyranny in our world." A cliché? Of course, but noteworthy for its arrogance. The paper then continues, "Achieving this goal is the work of generations. The United States is in the early years of a long struggle. . . . The 20th century witnessed the triumph of freedom over the threats of fascism and communism. Yet a new totalitarian ideology now threatens, an ideology grounded not in secular philosophy but in the perversion of a proud religion." Later in the document, this statement appears: "The struggle against militant Islamic radicalism is the great ideological conflict of the early years of the 21st century." This comparison of 20th century threats with 21st century threats makes it quite clear that the Bush administration foresees new world wars in the 21st century that may be every bit as bad as the world wars of the 20th. And there are no statements that the U.S. will make any great efforts to avoid such wars. "Pee Dubya" just doesn't seem to care.
Nowhere in the 2002 version of The National Security Strategy were such comparisons of 20th century fascism and communism with 21st century "militant Islamic radicalism" made, although a formulation almost as blunt did appear in a very high-level U.S. publication (for the first time that this writer can recall) -- in the 9/11 Commission Report released in July 2004.
The 9/11 Commission, consisting of both Republicans and Democrats appointed by the leaders of both parties, issued a report that contained absolutely no dissents or even hints of disagreements. The commissioners unanimously concluded, in what was a key passage of the report, that "the enemy is not just 'terrorism,' some generic evil. . . . It is the threat posed by Islamist terrorism. . . . Bin Ladin and Islamist terrorists mean exactly what they say: to them America is the font of all evil, the 'head of the snake,' and it must be converted or destroyed. . . . [This] is not a position with which Americans can bargain or negotiate. With it there is no common ground -- not even respect for life -- on which to begin a dialogue. It can only be destroyed or utterly isolated. . . . This process is likely to be measured in decades, not years." The only things missing from this diatribe were the comparisons with fascism and communism.
So, from 2002 to 2004 and then to 2006, there was a progression -- a gradually increasing willingness at top levels of the government to talk explicitly about Islamic extremism as the cause of all our troubles and to talk more openly and bluntly about a conflict lasting for "decades" or "generations." At lower levels around Washington, among mid-level neocon officials and media representatives of the neocons such as Charles Krauthammer, such bluntness has been in evidence for a considerably longer period. But by 2006 the bluntness was also an open part of the presidentially-approved dogma in the highest level U.S. documents.
All this seems intended to provide Bush a stronger reason to support the "clash of civilization" notion originally conceived by the neocons and long backed by many Christian fundamentalist leaders in the U.S., as well as by Israeli right-wingers. And since this conflict will last for "generations," won't it also promise great profits for those arms-makers who are among Bush's strongest supporters and largest contributors? And isn't it also intended to make it easier for the Bush administration to continue giving its close ally Israel a free hand to do whatever it wants to those "Muslim extremists" who recently won a democratic election in the West Bank?
Let's look more closely at this picture of a conflict lasting for decades that the Bush administration wants to drag us into. Some among us, including me, would argue the contrary case, that if the U.S. actually changed its foreign policies, ceased its drive for political and economic domination over areas of the world that Arabs and Muslims consider to be theirs, and seriously addressed their legitimate grievances on the Palestine-Israel issue, we could reduce the threat of terrorism against us and our allies in far less time. Taking a moral stand for a change, if only by backing away from imperialism, would have the dual benefit of being moral -- a nice change of pace -- and pragmatically of vastly enhancing the U.S. image around the world and undermining the terrorists' anti-American case.
Let's look more closely also at the claim that Islamist terrorism is the great danger of the present. Danger to whom? If you were a Muslim, might you not figure instead that the greatest danger to you was U.S. and Israeli aggression and Christian fundamentalist extremism, given some of the statements certain fundamentalist leaders in the U.S. have made about Islam? Put another way, might you not see the greatest danger to you arising from the alliance of Christian and Jewish fundamentalism arrayed against your world?
Let's take one more example. One of the action recommendations in the 9/11 Commission's report is this: "The problems in the U.S.-Saudi relationship must be confronted, openly. . . . [An effort should be made to work toward] a shared interest in greater tolerance and cultural respect, translating into a commitment to fight the violent extremists who foment hatred." If we say that about the U.S.-Saudi relationship, should we not ask that problems in the U.S.-Israeli-Muslim relationship be confronted just as openly? If you were a Muslim, would you not regard it as equally important to global peace that the U.S. work for tolerance and cultural respect in both America and Israel as well, and work toward translating that into a commitment to fight extremists who foment hatred of Islam in both nations?
The new 2006 version of the National Security Strategy paper also deals with U.S. policy toward Iraq, Iran, and Syria. It will not be news to readers that there is nothing in the document about the timing of even a partial withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq. Every reference to Iraq is written in a manner intended to persuade readers that U.S. forces will remain in the country indefinitely. Nor will it be news that the administration plans to continue employing preemptive military action in the region whenever and wherever it decides to do so. The paper contains no serious restrictions on any future U.S. preemptive military actions.
Syria and Iran are lumped together as "allies of terror" in the 2006 version, and they are told that "the world must hold these regimes to account." The document contains nothing on specific U.S. plans for Syria, but Iran receives considerably more detailed treatment. The U.S. alleges that Iran "has violated its Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) safeguards obligations" and says that "we may face no greater challenge from a single country than from Iran." The paper threatens "confrontation" if diplomatic efforts do not succeed and goes on to say that the U.S. also has "broader concerns. . . . The Iranian regime sponsors terrorism; threatens Israel; seeks to thwart Middle East peace; disrupts democracy in Iraq; and denies the aspirations of its people for freedom." How much of this is bluff and how much is not is impossible to know for sure, but at the least, the document intentionally leaves the impression that some form of U.S., or U.S.-Israeli, military action against Iran, possibly involving nuclear weapons, is likely in coming months.
A digression is necessary here. This writer's belief is that the only long-term hope the world has of avoiding a quite widespread further proliferation of nuclear weapons to additional nations in the coming decade is for the U.S. to undertake honest and serious multilateral negotiations aimed at eliminating nuclear weapons everywhere. In the specific case of Iran, if we in the U.S., without launching a war, seriously want that country to forgo nuclear weapons, we should understand that Iran, despite its present denials, almost certainly wants a capability to acquire such weapons in the future, just as the Bush administration believes. Iran wants them, or will want them, first, because Israel has them; second, because the U.S. has them; and third, because numerous other nations have them. As a proud country, Iran believes it is equally entitled to them, and that belief will not change. Furthermore, in the eyes of most Muslims around the world and many other people too, Iran, with a population of close to 70 million, clearly has as much right as Israel, with a population less than one-tenth as large, to have nuclear weapons.
To reemphasize the essential point, in a world where the dominant system of governance continues to be based on sovereign nation-states, the only hope, without a war, of persuading Iran to stop its nuclear weapons program is for the U.S. to end its own monumental hypocrisy on nuclear weapons. The U.S. government itself would have to undertake a major change of policy. It would have to accept the proposition, very publicly, that until the U.S. is willing to eliminate its own nuclear weapons, other nation-states around the world, including Iran, have just as much right to them as the U.S., Israel, Russia, China, England, France, India, Pakistan -- and yes, North Korea. Then, as already mentioned, the U.S. would have to begin negotiations to eliminate nuclear weapons everywhere, and it would have to stop immediately all planning to expand the varieties of weapons in its own nuclear arsenal. It would also have to stop Israel from doing the same.
From here on, what would happen next becomes even more speculative. Assuming it was possible to convince most of the major powers including the U.S. to begin multilateral talks on nuclear disarmament, the negotiations would undoubtedly require several years. In the end, the United Nations or some new international organization would most likely need a strong international military force, not dominated by the U.S., to enforce and verify any agreement, with respect to both nation-states and non-state entities. Under any circumstances, such negotiations would be exceedingly difficult.
As a simultaneous and indispensable step in this scenario, parallel negotiations on a nuclear-free zone in the entire Middle East, including Israel, would also have to be undertaken simultaneously with the global nuclear disarmament talks. Most Arab nations in the past have already supported a nuclear-free zone, while Israel has been the stumbling block. But the U.S. would have to refuse to be a partner of Israel in these negotiations, because to do so would cause the negotiations to fail miserably. Instead, we would deliberately and openly have to change our policy toward Israel and put whatever pressure on that country might be necessary to bring about a nuclear-free zone. Specifically, the U.S. would probably have to announce that future U.S. aid to Israel would be tied to the successful establishment of such a zone. Stringent enforcement and verification measures would be needed.
Now let's come down to earth. Unfortunately, it is simply impossible to envisage a situation in which any conceivable U.S. administration would at present accept even step one of this scenario -- that is, even beginning a process of negotiating away its own nuclear weapons.
Therefore, any Iranian government will in the end consider that it has as much right as the rest of us to have its own nuclear weapons, regardless of the fact that it has signed the Nonproliferation Treaty. It could quite truthfully charge that the U.S. itself had already violated the NPT, and that therefore Iran was entitled to do the same. Even if Teheran, under pressure, were to sign new agreements, now or in the future, to forgo such weapons, the new agreements would be meaningless as long as the U.S., Israel, and other nuclear nations insisted that they could keep and expand their own nuclear arsenals.
Many people are aware that the critical bargain reached in the 1970 NPT -- the bargain that made the treaty possible -- was a trade-off: the acceptance of continued non-nuclear-weapons status by states without those weapons, in return for the simultaneous agreement by states possessing nuclear weapons to pursue good-faith negotiations on nuclear, as well as general and complete, disarmament, "under strict and effective international control." These provisions had no teeth, and certainly many "realists" in the U.S. foreign policy establishment thought the provisions were so unrealistic that they would not and could not be enforced. And in truth they never have been. Nevertheless, the existence of these provisions was necessary to the NPT's ratification by numerous countries, and they give any state dissatisfied with progress toward nuclear disarmament -- including Iran -- an excuse to abrogate or ignore the treaty.
While the niceties of international law on this issue may not be a major concern to most people, another question truly is vital. Which is more important -- stopping the further proliferation of nuclear weapons to Iran, or stopping the U.S. government and/or the government of Israel from instigating a war against Iran? If it is impossible to do both without military action, this question must be addressed. To this writer, the answer is crystal clear: The single most urgent objective right now is preventing a war, possibly nuclear, from being started by the U.S. and/or Israel against Iran. Such a war would be disastrous, and we should be doing whatever we can, with the highest possible priority, to prevent it from ever happening.
From 1945 until the U.S. invaded Iraq in 2003, the U.S. never once took military action to prevent other nations from simply acquiring nuclear weapons. And numerous other nations did in fact acquire them. Washington relied instead on deterrence and containment to prevent other nations from using such weapons after they had been developed. Deterrence and containment may not be perfect policies, but they have a successful track record and can probably be applied more successfully than other policies to subnational groups as well as nation-states. It is also quite likely that Iran itself, whenever it decides that it must have its own nuclear weapons more quickly than it now seems to want them, will conclude that it too needs them for deterrent rather than preemptive and aggressive purposes against the U.S. and Israel. The point is that for Iran as well as the U.S., deterrence and containment turn out still to be better policies than the recklessness of preemption. We should therefore strongly reject any U.S.- or Israeli-initiated military actions or coup attempts against Iran. The consequence of such actions would almost certainly be a new world war.
Bill Christison was a senior official of the CIA. He served as a National Intelligence Officer and as Director of the CIA's Office of Regional and Political Analysis. He is a contributor to Imperial Crusades, CounterPunch's history of the wars on Iraq and Afghanistan. He can be reached at Kathy.bill@christison-santafe.com.
Last edited by Alpha on Fri Jun 09, 2006 10:09 pm; edited 2 times in total | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Thu May 18, 2006 6:46 pm Post subject: US, ISRAEL OPERATE IN IRAN VIA KURDS AND MEK |
| General Janis Karpinski discussed the MEK operations in Iran (via the JINSA/PNAC Neocon cabal out of AEI and JINSA/PNAC associate Dick Cheney's office) with a caller on her radio program from April 22nd, 2006 (click on the link for the second hour of her broadcast for April 22nd at the following URL - there is music that plays for a few minutes before the second hour of her broadcast begins):
http://mp3.rbnlive.com/Janis06.html
Additional about the JINSA/PNAC Neocon connection to the MEK via Richard Perle and others at the following URL:
http://gorillaintheroom.blogspot.com/2005/04/terrorist-group-to-hold-convention-in.html
US, ISRAEL OPERATE IN IRAN
COVERT FORCES IN IRAN TRAINING KURDISH REBELS
Richard Walker
May 17, 2006
Behind the increasingly shrill rhetoric and saber rattling over Iran’s nuclear ambitions America and Israel are engaged in a secret war against Iran that has echoes of the years when the CIA supported the Afghan mujahideen against the Soviet Union.
This time, the United States and Israel are running covert operations with the help of Kurdish militias and rebel Iranian fighters. For some observers, training and arming Islamic fighters smacks of the days of Soviet rule in Afghanistan.
Then, the Soviet army, which was the second most powerful military in the world, was defeated by Islamic militants, including men like Osama bin Laden.
Now the U.S. military, with Israeli commandos lending a hand, is arming and secretly training a different breed of mujahideen, or Islamic fighters—Kurdish militias with links to ethnic Kurdish communities in Iran and Syria, and fighters from the Iranian Mujahideen-e-Khalq (MEK), which has bases in southern Iraq and has provided the United States with information about the Iranian military and Iran’s nuclear sites.
From the perspective of Washington and Tel Aviv, the history of the Kurds makes them ideal recruits for a covert war against Iran and Syria.
During and after Saddam Hussein’s rule, the Kurds of northern Iraq longed for an independent Kurdistan. When the so-called "no-fly zone" was in place over Iraq, the Kurds had protection from the U.S. Air Force and U.S. allies. That enabled them to build a large militia force and to develop a burgeoning economy.
But, since the fall of Saddam the Kurds have become disillusioned with the country’s slide into chaos and have hinted that they would be happy to see Iraq divided into three parts. In that event, they would establish an autonomous region called Kurdistan and the rich northern oil fields of Kirkuk would ensure their prosperity for decades to come.
Not everyone favors creation of an independent Kurdistan. The Turks, Iranians and Syrians are united in a belief that it would generate instability by encouraging large ethnic Kurdish communities in their countries to demand separation and an alignment with Iraq’s Kurds.
In the 20th century ethnic Kurdish demands for autonomy led to more than 30,000 of them being slaughtered by the Turks. In Iran, they were brutally suppressed in three provinces they dominated.
As part of a covert scheme to destabilize and soften up the Iranian regime for possible Special Forces attacks on Iranian nuclear facilities, Washington has turned to disaffected Iranian Kurds for help and to Iranian dissidents in the MEK.
Using fighters trained by the United States in secret bases in southern Iraq, the MEK has carried out a series of attacks in Iran. In recent months, there has been increasing instability inside three Iranian provinces dominated by Kurds, as well as attacks on Iranian troops near the border with Iraq. A Kurdish guerrilla group claimed responsibility for two of the attacks, saying they were in retaliation for Iranian shelling into Kurdish areas of northern Iraq.
New York journalist Seymour Hersh claimed in December 2005 that U.S. combat troops were already in Iran. Following that report, there was an incident near the Iran-Iraq border in January when an Iranian military cargo plane carrying 10 top Iranian Revolutionary Guard commanders mysteriously crashed. Later, there were rumors it was brought down by U.S. Special Forces within Iran.
In April 2006, Iran said it shot down a U.S. surveillance drone flying over the country. Israel has been running its own black operations with the help of Kurds it has trained. The Kurds reportedly have strong ties to Israel because it supports the creation of an independent Kurdistan. From an Israeli perspective, such an entity would provide Israel with an ally in a region in which it is totally isolated and would keep Iraq destabilized.
It was Israel’s neo-con friends in Washington who once believed a new Iraq would be Israel’s best ally, but the more that vision has turned to nightmare, the more Israel has looked to the creation of a separate Kurdish state in Iraq as the next best thing.
Israel’s relationship with the Kurds goes back a long way. During the Iran-Iraq war, the Israelis supplied the Kurds with weapons to attack Saddam Hussein’s forces. Then, after the first Gulf War, when the United States and its allies abandoned the Kurds, Israel continued to provide them with weapons and training.
To that end, Israeli special forces and Mossad have been training and recruiting Kurds for clandestine operations and surveillance in Iran and Syria. The advantage of having Kurdish fighters carry out operations is that they can easily blend into ethnic Kurdish communities and sow dissent.
They can also recruit rebel elements and build bases for future operations. Kurdish militiamen and fighters from the MEK are seen by Israel as ideal insurgents.
Richard Walker is the nom de plume of a former mainstream news producer who now writes for AFP so he can expose the kinds of subjects that he was forbidden to cover in the controlled press.
:: The incoming address of this article is :
www.americanfreepress.net/html/us__israel_operate_in_iran.html
Last edited by Alpha on Sat May 20, 2006 9:39 am; edited 3 times in total | | | | Alpha | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Thu May 18, 2006 10:51 pm Post subject: Pro-Israel lobby in U.S. under attack |
| Pro-Israel lobby in U.S. under attack
http://www.upi.com/InternationalIntelligence/view.php?StoryID=20060320-124726-1902r
Intl. Intelligence
WASHINGTON, March 20 (UPI) -- Two of America's top scholars have published a searing attack on the role and power of Washington's pro-Israel lobby in a British journal, warning that its "decisive" role in fomenting the Iraq war is now being repeated with the threat of action against Iran. And they say that the Lobby is so strong that they doubt their article would be accepted in any U.S.-based publication.
Professor John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago, author of "The Tragedy of Great Power Politics" and Professor Stephen Walt of Harvard's Kenney School, and author of "Taming American Power: The Global Response to U.S. Primacy," are leading figures American in academic life.
They claim that the Israel lobby has distorted American policy and operates against American interests, that it has organized the funneling of more than $140 billion dollars to Israel and "has a stranglehold" on the U.S. Congress, and its ability to raise large campaign funds gives its vast influence over Republican and Democratic administrations, while its role in Washington think tanks on the Middle East dominates the policy debate.
And they say that the Lobby works ruthlessly to suppress questioning of its role, to blacken its critics and to crush serious debate about the wisdom of supporting Israel in U.S. public life.
"Silencing skeptics by organizing blacklists and boycotts -- or by suggesting that critics are anti-Semites -- violates the principle of open debate on which democracy depends," Walt and Mearsheimer write.
"The inability of Congress to conduct a genuine debate on these important issues paralyses the entire process of democratic deliberation. Israel's backers should be free to make their case and to challenge those who disagree with them, but efforts to stifle debate by intimidation must be roundly condemned," they add, in the 12,800-word article published in the latest issue of The London Review of Books.
The article focuses strongly on the role of the "neo-conservatives" within the Bush administration in driving the decision to launch the war on Iraq.
"The main driving force behind the war was a small band of neo-conservatives, many with ties to the Likud," Mearsheimer and Walt argue." Given the neo-conservatives' devotion to Israel, their obsession with Iraq, and their influence in the Bush administration, it isn't surprising that many Americans suspected that the war was designed to further Israeli interests."
"The neo-conservatives had been determined to topple Saddam even before Bush became president. They caused a stir early in 1998 by publishing two open letters to Clinton, calling for Saddam's removal from power. The signatories, many of whom had close ties to pro-Israel groups like JINSA (Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs) or WINEP (Washington Institute for Near Eastern Policy), and who included Elliot Abrams, John Bolton, Douglas Feith, William Kristol, Bernard Lewis, Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz, had little trouble persuading the Clinton administration to adopt the general goal of ousting Saddam. But they were unable to sell a war to achieve that objective. They were no more able to generate enthusiasm for invading Iraq in the early months of the Bush administration. They needed help to achieve their aim. That help arrived with 9/11. Specifically, the events of that day led Bush and Cheney to reverse course and become strong proponents of a preventive war," Walt and Mearsheimer write.
The article, which is already stirring furious debate in U.S. academic and intellectual circles, also explores the historical role of the Lobby.
"For the past several decades, and especially since the Six-Day War in 1967, the centerpiece of US Middle Eastern policy has been its relationship with Israel," the article says.
"The combination of unwavering support for Israel and the related effort to spread 'democracy' throughout the region has inflamed Arab and Islamic opinion and jeopardized not only U.S. security but that of much of the rest of the world. This situation has no equal in American political history. Why has the U.S. been willing to set aside its own security and that of many of its allies in order to advance the interests of another state?" Professors Walt and Mearsheimer add.
"The thrust of U.S. policy in the region derives almost entirely from domestic politics, and especially the activities of the 'Israel Lobby'. Other special-interest groups have managed to skew foreign policy, but no lobby has managed to divert it as far from what the national interest would suggest, while simultaneously convincing Americans that U.S. interests and those of the other country - in this case, Israel -- are essentially identical," they add.
They argue that far from being a strategic asset to the United States, Israel "is becoming a strategic burden" and "does not behave like a loyal ally." They also suggest that Israel is also now "a liability in the war on terror and the broader effort to deal with rogue states.
"Saying that Israel and the U.S. are united by a shared terrorist threat has the causal relationship backwards: the US has a terrorism problem in good part because it is so closely allied with Israel, not the other way around," they add. "Support for Israel is not the only source of anti-American terrorism, but it is an important one, and it makes winning the war on terror more difficult. There is no question that many al-Qaida leaders, including Osama bin Laden, are motivated by Israel's presence in Jerusalem and the plight of the Palestinians. Unconditional support for Israel makes it easier for extremists to rally popular support and to attract recruits."
They question the argument that Israel deserves support as the only democracy in the Middle East, claiming that "some aspects of Israeli democracy are at odds with core American values. Unlike the US, where people are supposed to enjoy equal rights irrespective of race, religion or ethnicity, Israel was explicitly founded as a Jewish state and citizenship is based on the principle of blood kinship. Given this, it is not surprising that its 1.3 million Arabs are treated as second-class citizens."
The most powerful force in the Lobby is AIPAC, the American-Israel Public affairs Committee, which Walt and Mearsheimer call "a de facto agent for a foreign government," and which they say has now forged an important alliance with evangelical Christian groups.
The bulk of the article is a detailed analysis of the way they claim the Lobby managed to change the Bush administration's policy from "halting Israel's expansionist policies in the Occupied Territories and advocating the creation of a Palestinian state" and divert it to the war on Iraq instead. They write "Pressure from Israel and the Lobby was not the only factor behind the decision to attack Iraq in March 2003, but it was critical."
"Thanks to the lobby, the United States has become the de facto enabler of Israeli expansion in the Occupied Territories, making it complicit in the crimes perpetrated against the Palestinians," and conclude that "Israel itself would probably be better off if the Lobby were less powerful and U.S. policy more even-handed."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mearsheimer replies to the irate "Israel Lobby"
Letters - The Israel Lobby - From John Mearsheimer & Stephen Walt.
We wrote ‘The Israel Lobby’ in order to begin a discussion of a subject that had become difficult to address openly in the United States (LRB, 23 March). We knew it was likely to generate a strong reaction, and we are not surprised that some of our critics have chosen to attack our characters or misrepresent our arguments. …. Must Read !!!
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n09/letters.html
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/print/mear01_.html
Additional at following URL:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2006/03/17/u-s-middle-east-policy-motivated-by-pro-israel-lobby.php | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Sun May 21, 2006 5:43 pm Post subject: Israel's Olmert wants US to 'deal with' (bomb!) Iran |
| Israel's Olmert wants US to 'deal with' (bomb!) Iran
Olmert: Iran Close to Atomic Bomb Know-How
By RAMIT PLUSHNICK-MASTI,
Associated Press Writer
30 minutes ago
Iran is just a few months away from acquiring the technological know-how that will allow it to build an atomic bomb, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said in an interview broadcast Sunday.
Olmert flew to Washington on Sunday for his first meeting as prime minister with President Bush. The two leaders are expected to discuss Iran's nuclear ambitions.
Olmert told CNN's "Late Edition" that the key issue regarding Iran was not when it builds a nuclear bomb, but rather when it acquires the knowledge they need to manufacture such arms.
"This technological threshold is nearer than we anticipated before. This is because they are already engaged very seriously in enrichment," Olmert said.
"The technological threshold is very close. It can be measured in months rather than years," Olmert added, repeating statements previously made by other senior Israeli officials.
Olmert said the world could not take Iran's nuclear ambitions lightly because Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has repeatedly called for Israel's destruction. However, he said it was unlikely Israel would act on its own, diplomatically or militarily, to deal with the problem.
In 1981, Israel's air force attacked the Iraqi nuclear reactor at Osirak, destroying the facility. But Olmert said the situations cannot be compared, and Israel will try to persuade the Western world to impose sanctions on Iran.
Iran has so far rejected European proposals to back off the idea of U.N.-imposed sanctions if Tehran agrees to freeze its uranium enrichment program. Another proposal the Europeans are preparing will apparently include a clause saying that if Iran refuses, it could face sanctions backed by the threat of force.
Iran, which insists its nuclear program is for peaceful, civilian purposes, says it has the right to enrich uranium.
Olmert expressed confidence that Bush would "lead other nations in taking the necessary measures to stop Iran from becoming a nuclear power."
"We will certainly try to convince other countries that, at this time, before they cross the technological threshold, that the measures will be taken to stop them," Olmert said.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Listen to what Dr. Sniegoski mentions about the US attacking Iran for Israel via the following:
'IRAQ WAR CONCEIVED IN ISRAEL' author on Karen Kwiatkowski's radio program yesterday
Dr. Stephen Sniegoski was on Karen Kwiatkowski's radio broadcast (for the Republic Broadcasting Network) yesterday discussing the JINSA/PNAC Neocon 'war for Israel' agenda as such can be listened to via clicking on the May 20th, 2006 link at:
http://mp3.rbnlive.com/Karen06.htm
Additional at the following URL:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2006/05/17/iraq-war-conceived-in-israel-author-on-karen-kwiatkowski-s.php | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Sun May 21, 2006 7:01 pm Post subject: No Security Guarantee for Iran, Rice Says |
| No Security Guarantee for Iran, Rice Says
By DOUGLASS K. DANIEL, Associated Press Writer
Sun May 21, 11:24 AM ET
The U.S. has not offered a guarantee against attacking or undermining Iran's hard-line government in exchange for having Tehran curtail its nuclear program, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Sunday.
"Iran is a troublemaker in the international system, a central banker of terrorism. Security assurances are not on the table," Rice said.
The European Union said last week it would propose economic and political incentives to persuade Iran to halt its plans for enriching uranium. While Iranian officials contend they are only seeking nuclear power, the U.S. and other nations fear Iran is working toward developing weapons.
Rice, appearing on Sunday news shows, said European officials have not asked the U.S. for security guarantees as they discuss options for dealing with Iran. She did not say what the U.S. response would be if asked to provide such an assurance.
"What we're talking about is a package that will make clear to Iran that there are choices to be made," she said on "Fox News Sunday."
"Either that there will be sanctions and actions taken against Iran by the international community or there's a way for them to meet their civil nuclear concerns," she said.
Diplomats have said that Mohamed ElBaradei, who heads the International Atomic Energy Agency, would meet with Rice and President Bush's national security adviser, Stephen Hadley, this week in Washington. In addition, representatives from the five permanent U.N. Security Council members, the EU and Germany plan to met in London to talk about Iran.
Rice said she thought it was strange even to discuss security guarantees when Iran threatens Israel, promotes terrorism in the Middle East and stirs up violence in southern Iraq to the detriment of U.S. forces.
Asked on NBC's "Meet the Press" if Bush would leave office with nuclear arms being developed in Iran, Rice said: "We can't allow Iran to steadily turn toward nuclear weapons because it would be tremendously destabilizing in this already volatile region. We have a lot of tools at our disposal."
Rice dismissed as "high talk" the statement last month by Iran's president, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, that his country would not "give a damn" about U.N. resolutions that could penalize Tehran.
"The Iranians know that sanctions, that international action can, in fact, be quite damaging to them," she said. "And so I assume that the Iranian president is simply posturing on this because I think the Iranians do know how devastating this could be."
Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert told CNN's "Late Edition" that he believes Iran is just a few months rather than a few years from acquiring the technological expertise needed to build a nuclear bomb | | | | Alpha | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Tue May 23, 2006 5:20 pm Post subject: 'Liberation' of Iraq for Israel (JINSA/PNAC Neocon style) |
| Here is the 'liberation' of Iraq (JINSA/PNAC Neocon style):
Subject: watch this video
Date: Mon, 22 May 2006 18:39:14 -0700
http://www.peacefilms.org/
"We would ask the man of the house questions. If he didn't answer the way we liked, we would shoot his youngest kid in the head." Testimony from a former U.S. Army Ranger --Jessie Macbeth, a Former Army Ranger and Iraq War Veteran, Tells All 21 May 2006 Excerpt: "When we were doing the night raids in the houses, we would pull people out and have them all on their knees and zip-tied. We would ask the man of the house questions. If he didn't answer the way we liked, we would shoot his youngest kid in the head. We would keep going, this was our interrogation. He could be innocent. He could be just an average Joe trying to support his family. If he didn't give us a satisfactory answer, we'd start killing off his family until he told us something. If he didn't know anything, I guess he was SOL." (Pepperspray Productions video)
http://dahrjamailiraq.com/weblog/archives/informational_posting/000394.php
'Iraq War Conceived in Israel' author on Karen Kwiatkowski's radio program (May 20th, 2006):
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2006/05/17/iraq-war-conceived-in-israel-author-on-karen-kwiatkowski-s.php
Hawkish Israel Lobby Wants War with Iran Next:
http://baltimore.indymedia.org/newswire/display/12448/index.php
Whose War? (Israel's War):
http://www.amconmag.com/03_24_03/cover.html
Scroll down to the UPI ('Pro-Israel Lobby Under Attack') article at the following URL as Libby is associated with such:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2006/03/17/u-s-middle-east-policy-motivated-by-pro-israel-lobby.php | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Wed May 24, 2006 3:23 am Post subject: Bush: U.S. would aid Israel if attacked (WE DON'T HAVE A TRE |
| Bush: U.S. would aid Israel if attacked (WE DON'T HAVE A TREATY WITH ISRAEL FOR SUCH!):
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/05/23/us.mideast/index.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ahmadinejad: Not Hitler After All
Ahmadinejad: Not Hitler After All
By Jan Frel, AlterNet
Posted on May 25, 2006, Printed on May 25, 2006
http://www.alternet.org/story/36654/
A now discredited article by Iranian-American and neocon chum Amir Taheri that appeared last Friday in the Canadian National Post suggested that new legislation in Iran would require Jews and other religious minorities to wear distinctive color badges. At the article's end appeared this invitation to readers:
"Dangerous Parallel: Is Iran turning into the new Nazi Germany? Share your opinion online at nationalpost.com."
The readers who wrote in immediately savaged the article, its author and the National Post's facile, transparent attempt to resurrect the Wermacht. No one took the bait, and the disbelief quickly spread across the internet.
The swift rejection of this attempt to turn Iran into the Fourth Reich incarnate is surely a natural reflex of a public still smarting from the ordeal of the Iraq PR campaign. Another explanation for the rapid response is the massive growth in streams of alternative information available to the public -- organizations like Media Matters and PR Watch literally make their living exposing lies and propaganda as they are released through media and government channels.
And then there are the bloggers who can singlehandedly get to the bottom of large-scale lies. In the case of the National Post story, blogger Taylor Marsh phoned the Simon Wiesenthal Center, which had confirmed Taheri's story after the report came out. A researcher Marsh spoke with on Friday "was eager to confirm it, using words like 'throwback' to the Nazi era, 'very true' and 'very scary.' ... "
Within the day, the story was repudiated. Middle East expert Juan Cole revealed that there was no evidence of any such anti-Jewish Iranian legislation, citing a report in the Australian press that quoted an Iranian politician denying its existence. Later in the day, Marsh again called the Wiesenthal Center and got the runaround. Looking at a fax the researcher sent her as background, Marsh discovered that the National Post had suggested to a rabbi at the Wiesenthal Center that it was important to "draw attention" to Taheri's report, exposing the scaffolding behind the propaganda effort.
Marsh concluded with the pointed question, "Who got the Simon Wiesenthal Center to stick their necks out on this bogus Iranian badge story, risking their very reputation and funding credibility, and who had what to gain by doing so?"
Marsh's deconstruction matters, because the story quickly made the rounds in conservative media, as analyst Jim Lobe wrote for IPS:
Taheri's story ... was reprinted by the New York Post, which is owned by media baron Rupert Murdoch, and picked up by the Jerusalem Post, which also featured a photo of a yellow star from the Nazi era over a photo of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
Another neoconservative publication, the New York Sun, also noted the story Monday, claiming that the specific report that special badges were required by the legislation had been "incorrect." At the same time, however, the Sun quoted two Iranian-American foes of the Islamic Republic as suggesting that dress requirements for religious minorities were still being considered by Iran's ruling circles. It offered no evidence to support that assertion.
The rapid discrediting of the Taheri article had real impact; instead of Condi Rice's trumpeting it as evidence of a proto-Nazi human-rights disaster, all we heard was a peep from U.S. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack, who professed ignorance of the now-toxic article and slyly referred to the idea of Iran forcing people to wear badges as evocative of "Germany under Hitler."
Since the evil dictator line has been used and abused to the point of meaninglessness over the past five years in Iraq, Afghanistan, North Korea and elsewhere, Bush and his team have been reduced to plundering words that still have some resonance in American life: "Hitler," "Nazis" and "Holocaust." Seymour Hersh in the New Yorker quoted a former senior intelligence official who said that Hitler is the comparison "name they are using" for Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
But, as the National Post story makes apparent, this tactic is not really working. The columnists and propagandists who support attacking Iran appear to sense that the Nazi backdrop through which they have been asked to present "The Iranian Question" reflects the utter baselessness of the charge and the facility with which opponents can easily refute their claims. Unlike the point-blank lies and bullet-point shotgun blasts on the op-ed pages and cable segments we got with Iraq about evil and weapons programs, with the Iran campaign, it has to be subliminal, surreptitious, stab-in-the-back.
Take conservative pundit Niall Ferguson's attempt in the L.A. Times. His May 15 opinion article was ostensibly about the rise of many little Cold Wars with the proliferation of nuclear powers. But within six sentences, Ferguson reveals that he wants to talk about Iran. Soon enough, in the most backhanded way possible, he tiptoes toward the Nazis:
"It is, of course, always dangerous to draw analogies with the 1930s. Too many bad decisions have been made over the years on the basis of facile parallels -- between Hitler and Nasser, between Hitler and Saddam Hussein."
In other words, even the Nazi comparison may have been looted of its meaning in the name of making bad decisions. So haven't we learned our lesson? No, because Bush still has one very bad decision to make, and a fanatic obsession with war does not generally give rise to creative impulses. So Ferguson relents: "Still, in one respect, Ahmadinejad really has taken a leaf out of the Führer's book."
It would be a distraction to explain just which leaf Ferguson is referring to, because then we'd be missing the point, which is to push us to link our historic venom against Nazis with anything Iranian, at any cost. Even the projection of Ahmadinejad as supreme leader is dubious; analysts and reporters have argued that he's merely a figurehead, and Seymour Hersh qouted a European diplomat who declared, "Ahmadinejad is not in control."
If enough people laugh off the attempts to draw Hitler's moustache on Ahmadinejad's upper lip, we might see the domestic propaganda division of the Get Iran effort shut down. The rapid and torrential takedown of the Taheri story is a good step in that direction.
But what if the propaganda were to stop, yet the attack on Iran were launched anyway?
Given the growing sense of total independence the Bush administration has displayed over the years, and its contempt for the press, it doesn't take a huge leap of the imagination to envision them attacking Iran while ignoring congressional power, public opinion, protesters and dissidents alike. That would be a very scary "first" in American history -- the only administration to go to war without a propaganda campaign. They don't even feel the need to lie to us anymore.
Jan Frel is an AlterNet staff writer.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/36654/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
POLITICS:
Iran Target of Apparent Disinformation Ploy
Jim Lobe
http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=33322
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: "rbleier" <rbleier@igc.org>
From: "Ronald" <rbleier@igc.org>
Date: Tue, 23 May 2006 12:38:40 -0400
Subject: [IntelligentMinds] J. Cole: Ahmadinejad didn't say wipe Israel off the map
Here's what Ahmadinejad really said according to Cole.
"The Imam said that this regime occupying Jerusalem (een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods) must [vanish from] from the page of time (bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad)."
Ahmadinejad was not making a threat, he was quoting a saying of Khomeini and urging that pro-Palestinian activists in Iran not give up hope-- that the occupation of Jerusalem was no more a continued inevitability than had been the hegemony of the Shah's government.
Friends:
Did I get this wrong, or was Cole's revelation that President Ahmadinejad didn't say Israel should be wiped off the map, prompted by an attack by Christopher Hitchens?
If that's. the case, why wasn't this information distributed independently?
According to Cole the supposed remark was invented as a deliberate slander on the part of the usual subject. I gather that Hitchens is way beyond the appeals to truth, common sense or apologies. Yet, as low as he's fallen, does he really want Bush to attack Iran with all the chaos and disaster that it might bring? Talk about descents. . --- Ronald
***
Hitchens the Hacker; And, Hitchens the Orientalist
By Juan Cole, 3 May 2006 (source: www.juancole.com)
Christopher Hitchens owes me a big apology.
I belong to a private email discussion group called Gulf2000. It has academics, journalists and policy makers on it. It has a strict rule that messages appearing there will not be forwarded off the list. It is run, edited and moderated by former National Security Council staffer for Carter and Reagan, Gary Sick, now a political scientist at Columbia University. The "no-forwarding" rule is his, and is intended to allow the participants to converse about controversial matters without worrying about being in trouble. Also, in an informal email discussion, ideas evolve, you make mistakes and they get corrected, etc. It is a rough, rough draft.
Hitchens somehow hacked into the site, or joined and lurked, or had a crony pass him things. And he has now made my private email messages the subject of an attack on me in Slate. (I am not linking to the article because it is highly unethical and Slate does not deserve any direct traffic from my site for it.) Moreover, he did not even have the decency to quote the final outcome of the discussions.
I'd like to take this opportunity to complain about the profoundly dishonest character of "attack journalism." Journalists are supposed to interview the subjects about which they write. Mr. Hitchens never contacted me about this piece. He never sought clarification of anything. He never asked permission to quote my private mail. Major journalists have a privileged position. Not just anyone can be published in Slate. Most academics could not get a gig there (I've never been asked to write for it). Hitchens is paid to publish there because he is a prominent journalist. But then he should behave like a journalist, not like a hired gun for the far Right, smearing hapless targets of his ire. That isn't journalism. For some reason it drives the Right absolutely crazy that I keep this little web log, and so they keep trotting out these clowns in amateurish sniping attacks. It is rather sad, that one person standing up to them puts them into such piranha-like frenzy.
The precise reason for Hitchens' theft and publication of my private mail is that I object to the characterization of Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as having "threatened to wipe Israel off the map." I object to this translation of what he said on two grounds. First, it gives the impression that he wants to play Hitler to Israel's Poland, mobilizing an armored corps to move in and kill people.
But the actual quote, which comes from an old speech of Khomeini, does not imply military action, or killing anyone at all. The second reason is that it is just an inexact translation. The phrase is almost metaphysical. He quoted Khomeini that "the occupation regime over Jerusalem should vanish from the page of time." It is in fact probably a reference to some phrase in a medieval Persian poem. It is not about tanks.
Since Mr. Hitchens wants to splash my private mail all over the internet against my will, as though he were himself an agent of the Bush Administration's electronic spying on the private conversations of Americans, I'm glad to share the message that encapsulates the results of our deliberations at Gulf2000.
Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2006 15:34:18 -0400 From: "Cole, Juan"
The speech in Persian is here:
Sorry that I misremembered the exact phrase Ahmadinejad had used. He made an analogy to Khomeini's determination and success in getting rid of the Shah's government, which Khomeini had said "must go" (az bain bayad berad). Then Ahmadinejad defined Zionism not as an Arabi-Israeli national struggle but as a Western plot to divide the world of Islam with Israel as the pivot of this plan.
The phrase he then used as I read it is "The Imam said that this regime occupying Jerusalem (een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods) must [vanish from] from the page of time (bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad)."
Ahmadinejad was not making a threat, he was quoting a saying of Khomeini and urging that pro-Palestinian activists in Iran not give up hope-- that the occupation of Jerusalem was no more a continued inevitability than had been the hegemony of the Shah's government.
Whatever this quotation from a decades-old speech of Khomeini may have meant, Ahmadinejad did not say that "Israel must be wiped off the map" with the implication that phrase has of Nazi-style extermination of a people. He said that the occupation regime over Jerusalem must be erased from the page of time.
Again, Ariel Sharon erased the occupation regime over Gaza from the page of time.
I should again underline that I personally despise everything Ahmadinejad stands for, not to mention the odious Khomeini, who had personal friends of mine killed so thoroughly that we have never recovered their bodies. Nor do I agree that the Israelis have no legitimate claim on any part of Jerusalem. And, I am not exactly a pacifist but have a strong preference for peaceful social activism over violence, so needless to say I condemn the sort of terror attacks against innocent civilians (including Arab Israelis) that we saw last week. I have not seen any credible evidence, however, that such attacks are the doing of Ahmadinejad, and in my view they are mainly the result of the expropriation and displacement of the long-suffering Palestinian people.
It is not realistic for Americans to call for Iran to talk directly to the Israeli government (though in the 1980s the Khomeinists did a lot of business with Israel) when the US government won't talk directly to the Iranians about most bilateral issues. In fact, an American willingness to engage in direct talks might well pave the way to an eventual settlement of these outstanding issues.
cheers
Juan Cole
I don't have any intention of making a point by point reply to Hitchens's completely inaccurate screed. He blames me for not referring to some other speech of Khomeini, when in fact I never instanced any speeches of Khomeini at all in this discussion except the snippet cited by Ahmadinejad-- I was arguing that there is no Persian idiom to wipe something off the map, and that Ahmadinejad has been misquoted.
Hitchens imagines a whole discourse of mine (which mostly never took place) that he now sets out to refute-- from English translations! But I was saying that the wire service translations were the problem in the first place. Hitchens seems to think that he can over-rule my reading of a Persian text by reference to some hurried journalist's untechnical rendering into English.
Hitchens alleges that I said that Khomeini never called for wiping Israel from the face of the map. Actually, I never said anything at all about Khomeini's own speeches or intentions. I was solely discussing Ahmadinejad. Hitchens should please quote me on Khomeini and Israel. He cannot. He is making it up out of whole cloth. He should retract.
I write so much with which the Far Right disagrees so vehemently. I publish it here. Why is it that they keep having to invent quotations and put them in my mouth. Now, Cole is alleged to deny that Khomeini's rhetoric was hostile to Israel. Is that even a plausible allegation?
But, by the way, Khomeini sold oil to Israel, and Israel sold him weapons and spare parts, and put the Reagan administration up to doing the same thing. You will note that when Khomeini originally made the statement about the occupation regime over Jerusalem vanishing from the page of time, that was not front page news. In fact, secret Israeli arms shipments were arriving in Tehran as Khomeini was speaking. So whatever is going on now is not about the rhetoric, is it?
Here is what the National Security Archive says about Khomeini and Israel:
' Even during the hostage crisis in Tehran, Israel?later the United States' partner through much of the Iran initiative?began to strike weapons deals of its own with Iran. Tel Aviv, like Washington, had a long history of selling arms to the Shah, which Tehran's revolutionary government was willing to exploit secretly, despite its public animosity toward the state of Israel. Reportedly, the United States knew about Israeli transactions during the early 1980s but turned a blind eye. News accounts alleged later that President Reagan's first secretary of state, Alexander Haig, gave Tel Aviv an "amber light," acquiescing in the weapons transfers without officially approving them. One report stated that Haig gave permission to Israel to sell U.S.-made military spare parts for fighter planes to Iran in early 1981 after discussions between his counselor at the State Department, Robert McFarlane, and Israeli Foreign Ministry official David Kimche. An Israeli account of the U.S.-backed weapons sales of 1985-1986 reports that Israeli Defense Minister Ariel Sharon proposed as early as 1982 that Washington consider an opening to factions in Iran using limited military sales as a vehicle. The White House apparently declined the suggestion but four years later would be more receptive to a similar proposal brought to McFarlane, then national security advisor, by his long-time counterpart, Kimche. '
Note that not only were the Israelis dealing with Khomeini, they are alleged to have been doing so while he was holding American hostages.
Back to Hitchens. How to explain this peculiar behavior on the part of someone who was at one time one of our great men of letters?
Well, I don't think it is any secret that Hitchens has for some time had a very serious and debilitating drinking problem. He once showed up drunk to a talk I gave and heckled me. I can only imagine that he was deep in his cups when he wrote, or had some far Rightwing think tank write, his current piece of yellow journalism. I am sorry to witness the ruin of a once-fine journalistic mind.
But the other reason for Hitchens's piece may be that he has become a warmonger, and it is possible that he wants a US war against Iran. More on that below.
As for the matter at issue, Ahmadinejad is a non-entity. The Iranian "president" is mostly powerless. The commander of the armed forces is the Supreme Jurisprudent, Ali Khamenei. Worrying about Ahmadinejad's antics is like worrying that the US military will act on the orders of the secretary of the interior. Ahmadinejad cannot declare war on anyone, or mobilize a military. So it doesn't matter what speeches he gives.
Moreover, Iran cannot fight Israel. It would be defeated in 72 hours, even if the US didn't come in, which it would (and rightly so if Israel were attacked). Iran is separated by several other countries from Israel. It has not attacked aggressively any other country militarily for over a century (can Americans say that of their own record?) It has only a weak, ineffective air force. So why worry about it?
What is really going on here is an old trick of the warmongers. Which is that you equate hurtful statements of your enemy with an actual military threat, and make a weak and vulnerable enemy look like a strong, menacing foe. Then no one can complain when you pounce on the enemy and reduce his country to flames and rubble.
It is obvious that powerful political forces in Washington are fishing for a pretext to launch a war on Iran, and that they are just delighted to have Ahmadinejad as cartoon villain and pretext. But they had a moderate, reforming president in Mohammad Khatami for 8 years, and just blew off all his overtures to the West. Iranians organized big candle-light vigils for America after September 11, in sympathy!
Washington never gave the reform movement the slightest encouragement, perhaps in hopes that the Iranians would be forced to turn right again and form a proper object of US hatred. If so, they got their wish last summer, when Ahmadinejad used the same dirty techniques to get elected as had George W. Bush.
All the warmongers in Washington, including Hitchens, if he falls into that camp, should get this through their heads. Americans are not fighting any more wars in the Middle East against toothless third rate powers. So sit down and shut up.
One, two, three, four! We don't want your stinking war!
We are not going to see any more US troops come home in body bags at Dover for the sake of some Cheney affiliate grabbing the petroleum in Iran's Ahvaz fields.
We are not going to have another 15,000 wounded vets flood onto our streets with spine damage and brain damage.
We are not going to put Yazd behind barbed wire to liberate it, as a millenarian Christian general did to Habbaniyah in Iraq.
We are not going to imprison and torture thousands of Iranians at Evin Penitentiary in Tehran, as worthy successors to the bloodthirsty Shah and Khomeini.
We are not going to kill 200,000 Iranians with aerial bombardments of Tabriz, Isfahan, Qom, Kerman, Shiraz and Mashahd.
We are not going to let dozens of US corporations loot the American people and the Iranian people alike with no-bid "contracts", embezzlement, corruption, and graft.
We are not going to let you have a war against Iran.
So sit down and shut up, American Enterprise Institute, and Hudson Institute, and Washington Institute for Near East Policy, and American Heritage Institute, and this institute and that institute, and cable "news", and government "spokesmen", and all the pundit-ferrets you pay millions to make business for the American military-industrial complex and Big Oil.
We don't give a rat's ass what Ahmadinejad thinks about European history or what pissant speech the little shit gives.
I call on university students across America to begin holding antiwar rallies. The only way you can have a war on Iran is to draft the young people. It is you who are on the line. Demonstrate! Demonstrate against the very hint of war! Demonstrate in front of the warmongering "institutes" in Washington, DC! Demonstrate to end the one we've already got! (See Speaker's Forum on Iraq
Here is what the real Iran experts think about the prospect of an Iran war.
Because Hitchens's dirty tricks and lies against me are only the beginning. Whoever stands against the Perpetual War machine will be attacked, slimed, marginalized, and destroyed if the warmongers get their way. I don't care. Thus far and no farther.
One, two, three, four. We don't want your stinking war!
posted by Juan @ 5/03/2006 06:30:00 AM | | | | | ©2002-2009 WarWithoutEnd.co.uk |
