| Author | Message | | Alpha | | Posted: Mon Aug 07, 2006 7:55 pm Post subject: Bamford discusses 'A Clean Break' on MSNBC's 'Countdown' |
| James Bamford discussed 'A Clean Break'/war for Israel agenda for Iraq, Syria and Iran on MSNBC's 'Countdown with Keith Olbermann':
"A Clean Break":
What is "A Clean Break?" Author James Bamford explains on MSNBC's Keith Olbermann's Countdown show:
http://www.corvuswire.com/cleanbreak.htm
'Countdown with Keith Olbermann' for August 4, 2006
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14227900/
At the same time, Salon reports, hard-liners in the administration believe Secretary of State Rice is not doing enough to push the neoconservative agenda.
Joining me now to discuss that revelation is James Bamford, an expert on the U.S. intelligence community and the author of groundbreaking books on the NSA called “Body of Secrets” and “The Puzzle Palace.” He now has an article on the prospect of war in Iran in the current issue of “Rolling Stone” magazine.
Mr. Bamford, thank you for your time tonight.
JAMES BAMFORD, “ROLLING STONE”: No, my pleasure, Keith.
OLBERMANN: Is the passing of secret intelligence to Israel, with the approval of the president, a clear sign that the administration might be looking to widen the conflict in the Middle East, instead of trying to contain it now?
BAMFORD: Well, it‘s not just intelligence. If you remember, last week there was a major report about how the U.S. was rushing sophisticated weapons to Israel for use in the war. So it‘s clear that the U.S., particularly the Pentagon, is pushing hard on behalf of Israel in this war.
OLBERMANN: Is it Condoleezza Rice herself that the neoconservatives view as a threat? Are they Colin-Powelling her? Or would anyone holding the post of secretary of state prove threatening to this line of thought, because diplomacy really is the antithesis of regime change?
BAMFORD: Well, I think Condi Rice is pretty much a protegee of Colin Powell, who they just couldn‘t stand as secretary of state. And they would prefer to have John Bolton, our ambassador to the U.N., as secretary of state, a fellow neocon.
So they‘re—at every chance they can, I think they‘re going to try to undermine her, and she‘s pushing to get a peace settlement as soon as possible, and I think they would like to delay it as long as possible.
OLBERMANN: By the mere fact, though, that Iraq has not and is not going and doesn‘t seem to be in the future going to be going the way the neocons had planned, does that not detract from their credibility about regime change anywhere else, particularly in Iran, even if it‘s as simple as wanting a do-over? What would make destabilizing that country and the process of that turn out any differently than the process in Iraq has?
BAMFORD: Well, they‘re on an entirely different plane, I think, than most people. And I don‘t think this deters them at all. They‘ve had this goal for years, for a decade, at least. In 1996, they came up with the clean-break plan, which was an outline for how Israel would basically get rid of Iraq and Saddam Hussein and move into Syria, Lebanon, and on to Iran.
I think they‘re trying to carry out this plan. It was written by the person who‘s now the Middle East adviser to Dick Cheney, and the person who was in charge of the war in Iraq, largely, Doug Feith at the Pentagon, in addition to the person who is head of the Defense Policy Board, Richard Perle.
So this has been a plan that‘s been in the works for a long time. And I think now it‘s their chance to see a possibility for this to come to fruition.
OLBERMANN: Is there an irony in all this, that Hezbollah‘s greatest ally in the region right now might not be Iran, but given that rally we saw in Baghdad today, that it might turn out to be the Arab Shi‘ite majority that we have installed in Iraq?
BAMFORD: Well, that‘s certainly one irony. Another irony is the fact that it was Ahmed Chalabi, the darling of the neoconservatives, that was used to gin up all the phony information to help us get into this war so that they could put Chalabi in there as president of Iraq. And now it turns out that the FBI is investigating Chalabi as possibly a spy for Iran.
So the ultimate irony would be if this was a plot all along by Iran, using Chalabi, to get the United States to get rid of their worst enemy, Saddam Hussein in Iraq, and make Iraq very convenient for a new Iranian government, a Shi‘ite-dominated government. And that‘s basically what‘s happened.
OLBERMANN: Sooner or later, if you deal with faith-based facts, you‘re going to trip on something. National security expert James Bamford, great thanks for joining us tonight.
BAMFORD: My pleasure, Keith.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not So Clean Break
http://www.amconmag.com/2006/2006_09_11/taki.html
In Pro-Israel Circles, Doubts Grow Over US Policy
http://www.antiwar.com/lobe/?articleid=9630
Iran: The Next War (latest Bamford article for Rolling Stone magazine)
Even before the bombs fell on Baghdad, a group of senior Pentagon officials were plotting to invade another country. Their covert campaign once again relied on false intelligence and shady allies. But this time, the target was Iran.
BY JAMES BAMFORD
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/10962352/iran_the_next_war/1
One can read more about the 'A Clean Break/war for Israel agenda on pages 261-269 of Bamford's 'A Pretext for War' book - scroll down to such at http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2005/02/11/a-clean-break-from-james-bamford-s-a-pretext-for-war.php and read more about 'A Clean Break' in the Mearsheimer/Walt paper on the pro-Israel lobby via http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/print/mear01_.html as one can scroll down to the 'Pro-Israel lobby under attack' UPI article at 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 as well).
The following article is right in accordance with the 'A Clean Break' agenda as 'A Clean Break' was written for Netanyahu is apparently going to replace Olmert soon:
“Honor First”; the liberation of Lebanon :
http://informationclearinghouse.info/article14620.htm
Sy Hersh's latest article (linked below) also mentioned Elliot Abrams who is a rabid Israel first Zionist Jew (see the article about him linked in the left margin of the following URL):
http://nowarforisrael.com/Rachel%20Corrie.htm
Seymour Hersh was on CNN's 'Wolf Blitzer' this morning (August 13th, 2006) talking about following article which mentioned that US (neocons, Pentagon) helped Israel with attack on Lebanon in order to get attack on Iran going (this would be right in accordance with the 'A Clean Break' and Bamford 'Rolling Stone' article posted above as well):
WATCHING LEBANON
Washington's interests in Israel's war.
by SEYMOUR M. HERSH
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060821fa_fact
A dummy run against Hezbollah
http://atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HH16Ak02.html
Seymour Hersh on 'Democracy Now':
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/08/14/1358255
Bush 'helped Israeli attack on Lebanon'
http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,1844021,00.html
Israeli Leaders Fault Bush on War
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/081206.html
Buchanan: Olmert's War – And The Next One:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2006/08/16/buchanan-olmert-s-war-and-the-next-one.php
Israeli invasion of Lebanon planned by neocons in June:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2006/07/24/israeli-invasion-of-lebanon-planned-by-neocons-in-june.php
Neocons Ready to Send U.S. Troops to Lebanon:
http://kurtnimmo.com/?p=482
AIPAC congratulates itself for slaughter in Lebanon:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2006/08/17/aipac-congratulates-itself-on-the-slaughter-in-lebanon.php
I don't know how credible the following is, but it is concerning if it is (it would be right in accordance with the 'A Clean Break'/war for Israel agenda that Bamford discusses above:
http://space4peace.blogspot.com/2006/08/us-israel-selecting-targets-for-cruise.html
Sunday, August 06, 2006
U.S. & ISRAEL SELECTING TARGETS FOR CRUISE MISSILE FIRST-STRIKE ATTACK
Multiple military sources have told the Global Network that Pentagon personnel responsible for selecting targets for cruise missile first strike attacks have been sent to Israel.
This indicates that U.S. and Israeli military strategists are now likely meeting to plan a joint attack on Syria and/or Iran.
The Persian Gulf war and the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq both began with cruise missile attacks by the U.S. from Naval ships. U.S. military satellites were used to guide the missiles to their targets.
It would be wise to recognize that Bush has decided to expand the current war and chaos into the entire Middle East region. The implications for the U.S. will be enormous.
Israel's recent bombing of Lebanon near the Syrian border indicate to me that they are trying to draw a response from Syria. So far Syria has not responded. Look for more such efforts by Israel and the U.S. to provoke Syria.
I would highly recommend local peace groups call on their members of Congress and demand they speak out against a further widening of this already insane war.
More and larger public protests should be organized immediately.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=34322
POLITICS-US:
Hard-line Neo-Cons Assail Israel for Timidity
Jim Lobe
WASHINGTON, Aug 11 (IPS) - While much of the world has criticised Israel for carrying out a "disproportionate" war against Hezbollah in Lebanon, hard-line neo-conservatives have attacked the government of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert for timidity.
As noted by diplomatic correspondent Ori Nir in this week's edition of The Forward, the U.S.' most important Jewish newspaper, the Israeli government and its military's chief of staff, Gen. Dan Halutz, have been subjected to unusually harsh criticism, including the charge that, by failing to wage a more aggressive war, they were jeopardising Israel's long-term strategic alliance with Washington.
"(Hezbollah) is today the leading edge of an aggressive, nuclear-hungry Iran," wrote Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer earlier this week. "...(Olmert's) search for victory on the cheap has jeopardised not just the Lebanon operation but America's confidence in Israel as well. The tremulous Olmert seems not have a clue."
In particular, Krauthammer and other leading neo-conservatives have assailed Olmert for not launching a massive ground invasion from the outset which, in their view, could have effectively crushed Hezbollah's military capabilities, if not the organisation itself.
"Hezbollah can only be destroyed by a ground campaign," wrote National Review columnist Jonah Goldberg early in the campaign. "If Israel doesn't launch one, it will be worse off."
Still others attacked him for failing to widen the war beyond Lebanon to Hezbollah supporters, Iran and Syria.
"(While) Iran may be too far away for much Israeli retaliation beyond a single strike on its nuclear weapons complex," wrote Max Boot, a Council of Foreign Relations fellow, in the Los Angeles Times, "...Syria is weak and next door. To secure its borders, Israel needs to hit the (President Bashir) Assad regime."
He was joined by in that appeal by Meyrav Wurmser, director of the neo-conservative Hudson Institute Centre for Middle East Policy and, significantly, the Israeli-born spouse of David Wurmser, a top Middle East adviser of Vice President Dick Cheney.
"The bottom line is that Israel's gripe is not with Lebanon; it (is) with Syria and Iran," she wrote in National Review Online (NRO). "Given the explosive nature of the situation, Israel ought not let its adversaries define the battleground. Rather, it ought to carry the battle to them."
These public attacks are widely believed to reflect the positions of hard-line neo-conservatives within the administration of President George W. Bush, centred, in particular, in Cheney's office and that of Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld.
They have largely been confined, however, to the more extreme elements in the neo-conservative movement, particularly those most closely associated with the right wing of Israel's opposition Likud Party.
With the exception of Krauthammer, they have strongly opposed former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's disengagement from Gaza and have been using the ongoing crisis there, as well as the war in Lebanon, to discredit Olmert's "convergence" strategy -- his plan to dismantle many Jewish settlements in all but about 10 percent of the occupied West Bank.
More pragmatic neo-conservatives, such as those clustered around Weekly Standard editor William Kristol (who, however, called in the early days of the war for a quick U.S. strike on Iranian nuclear facilities), have generally refrained from second-guessing Olmert's leadership and the conduct of the war.
Instead, they have focused on framing Israel's war against Hezbollah as part and parcel of Washington's larger "global war on terror". They have discouraged any suggestion that Washington seek to restrain Israel in its conduct of the war or impose a premature ceasefire, and have assailed "realist" and State Department proposals to directly engage Syria and Iran in efforts to stop the fighting or at least de-escalate the crises in which Israel finds itself as "appeasement".
Even these positions, however, have not been entirely appreciated by Olmert's government, according to Nir. He told the Voice of America (VOA) last week that he had "ascertained for a fact" that Israel had asked the Bush administration to use its influence with the Syrian government to gain the release of the three soldiers abducted by Hamas and Hezbollah, but that Washington -- no doubt as a result of internal neo-conservative influence -- had declined to do so. It was "quite a disappointment for Israel," he said.
Of the hard-line criticisms of Olmert, the most controversial has been the charge that, by failing to prosecute the war more vigorously, his government was undermining the administration's confidence in Israel as an effective ally in the war on terror.
Because of Hezbollah's strategic importance to Iran, "America wants, America needs, a decisive Hezbollah defeat," wrote Krauthammer in his Aug. 4 column, which noted that the existence of a "fierce debate in the United States about whether, in the post-Sep. 11 world, Israel is a net asset or liability."
"Hezbollah's unprovoked attack on Jul. 12 provided Israel the extraordinary opportunity to demonstrate its utility by making a major contribution to America's war on terrorism," but Olmert's "unsteady and uncertain leadership" had put that in question.
"The United States has gone far out on a limb to allow Israel to win... It has counted on Israel's ability to do the job. It has been disappointed," according to Krauthammer, who is known to be a favourite of Cheney.
Although Krauthammer's message was particularly crude, it was echoed in part by hard-line neo-conservative editorial writers in both the National Review and the Wall Street Journal, which repeatedly called for Olmert to take stronger action more quickly lest, as the Journal put it, "President Bush's entire vision for the Middle East ...suffer a severe setback."
"Let's face it: Nobody likes a pushover; nobody likes a weakling," Ariel Cohen, a neo-conservative at the Heritage Foundation, told Nir. "This is something Olmert and (Defence Minister Amir) Peretz have to think about: how Israel is perceived not only in Europe and the Arab world, but also in the United States."
These criticisms have provoked outrage from some quarters, particularly among mainstream leaders in the U.S. Jewish community.
Abraham Foxman, director of the Anti-Defamation League, told the Forward that it was "inappropriate" for non-Israelis "who don't take the consequences of their advice, especially when it comes to issues of life and death, to become backstage generals, sitting in Washington or in New York, trying to manage Israel's war."
"(Krauthammer) is one of those armchair General Pattons who rarely, if ever, indicates that he feels pain about the loss of soldiers whether in Lebanon, Iraq, or anywhere else," noted M.J. Rosenberg, an analyst at the Israel Policy Forum (IPF), who strongly favours diplomatic efforts -- including with Syria -- to end the fighting.
"Some on the right would rather blame Israel for its hesitation about fighting than consider how much better off Israel if it didn't have to fight at all," he wrote in his weekly newsletter. (END/2006)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Neocons' Next War (for Israel):
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2006/08/04/the-neocons-next-war-for-israel.php
Bush and Condi clash over Israel:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2006/08/09/bush-and-condi-clash-over-israel.php
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fresh Israel raids after UN vote - Israel begins "broadening" its military offensive in Lebanon, hours after the UN Security Council backs a ceasefire.
Fresh Israel raids after UN vote
Israel's military says it has begun "broadening" its ground offensive in Lebanon, hours after the UN Security Council voted for a ceasefire plan.
Troops were reportedly heading towards Lebanon's Litani River, and fresh air strikes on Saturday left several dead.
Overnight, a resolution calling for a "full cessation of hostilities" was passed unanimously at the UN.
Israel's cabinet is due to discuss the decision on Sunday and will only halt military action after it takes a vote.
Even as the diplomats finalised the draft, Israel radio said troops had been ordered to seize ground as far as the strategic Litani River, up to 30km (18 miles) from the Israeli border.
Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman Mark Regev said Israel's continuing actions would prepare the ground for an eventual takeover of southern Lebanon by Lebanese and international troops.
New strikes
Early strikes on Saturday led to reports of several deaths near the southern Lebanese city of Tyre, already badly hit by Israeli bombs.
A power station in the city of Sidon, north of the Litani River, was also struck, for just the second time in the conflict.
Hours before the UN vote, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert ordered an expansion of the ground offensive in Lebanon.
An adviser to Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora gave the resolution a cautious welcome, but there was no immediate reaction from Hezbollah.
The governments of both countries are expected to discuss the resolution at cabinet meetings over the weekend.
New mandate
UN Security Council resolution 1701 was passed unanimously in New York after an impassioned speech from Secretary General Kofi Annan.
This inability to act sooner has badly shaken the world's faith in this authority and its integrity
Kofi Annan
UN Secretary General
He lamented the UN's failure to act sooner to end fighting in the Middle East.
He also said the widely perceived delay in drafting a resolution had "badly shaken" global faith in the UN.
The new resolution says Hezbollah must end attacks on Israel while Israel must end "offensive military operations" in Lebanese territory.
Other key points include:
Some 15,000 peacekeeping troops for the existing UN Interim Force in Lebanon, Unifil, which will receive a beefed-up mandate to monitor and enforce the ceasefire
Lebanon's government asked to deploy troops to the south of the country, previously the domain of Hezbollah fighters
Israel required to withdraw troops currently in southern Lebanon as UN and Lebanese forces are deployed
Drawing up of plans for the disarmament of Hezbollah and the final settlement of the Israel-Lebanon border area, including the Shebaa farms area claimed by Hezbollah.
The US Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, said the deal should "open a path to lasting peace between Lebanon and Israel".
She said the strengthened Unifil would not be the same force currently in the region, which currently numbers just 2,000 troops.
The hostilities on both sides should cease immediately now that the resolution has finally been agreed by the whole of the international community
Tony Blair
UK Prime Minister
Unifil would be expanded, given a new mandate and new equipment in order to maintain peace, Ms Rice told the Security Council.
UK Prime Minister Tony Blair welcomed the resolution, but stressed that fighting should stop immediately following its adoption.
He also announced plans to visit the Middle East as part of a drive to revitalise the stalled peace process between Israel and the Palestinians, Reuters reported.
French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy called the adoption of the resolution "a historic turning point".
However, the foreign minister of Qatar, which currently sits on the Security Council, said the resolution still contained imbalances in favour of Israel.
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/middle_east/4786041.stm
Published: 2006/08/12 05:26:00 GMT
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Israeli drone strike on convoy kills 7
By JOSEPH PANOSSIAN, Associated Press Writer
59 minutes ago
An Israeli drone fired at a convoy of refugees fleeing southern Lebanon on Friday night, killing at least seven people and wounding 22, an Associated Press photographer said. The Israeli military said it was investigating the incident.
Early Saturday, Israeli warplanes struck several targets in north and south Lebanon, killing at least two people and wounding several others in the village of Kharayeb, security officials said, hours after the U.N. Security Council adopted a resolution calling for an end to the war.
Security officials said warplanes destroyed a power station in the southern port city of Sidon. There was no immediate word on casualties. Local media also reported airstrikes in Akkar province, 60 miles north of Beirut, and in Tyre.
The attack on the convoy was the most dramatic on a day of fighting Friday that saw Israeli airstrikes pound south Beirut and border crossings to Syria, killing at least 15 others as ground fighting picked up intensity in the south of the country. An Israeli soldier was killed in fighting in southern Lebanon, the army said.
Hezbollah on Friday sent another barrage of more than 150 rockets toward northern Israel. Rescue workers said eight people in the port of Haifa were wounded by shrapnel.
The ongoing clashes have killed more than 800 people — including at least 741 Lebanese and 123 Israelis.
Lutfallah Daher, the photographer, was with the convoy when it was hit near the Bekaa Valley town of Chtaura, about 30 miles north of the Litani River. Israel has said it would attack any vehicle on roads south of the Litani, assuming it was carrying Hezbollah weapons or fighters.
The photographer said that when the convoy left the Israeli-occupied town of Marjayoun in southern Lebanon, it was made up of more than 600 civilian vehicles in addition to vehicles carrying 350 Lebanese soldiers and police. A few vehicles had left the convoy before it was hit, the photographer said.
Daher lives in Marjayoun and was fleeing with his wife in one car. His mother, brother, sister-in-law and their child were in another car. None was harmed.
Two armored U.N. peacekeeping vehicles were to have accompanied the convoy, Daher said, but were not present when Israeli forces in Marjayoun gave the convoy permission to head north. Israeli tanks and infantry took control of Marjayoun on Thursday.
Israel's military said no convoys had been coordinated with the army.
The region around Marjayoun, a mainly Christian town, was hit by Israeli warplanes and artillery during and after the Israeli advance.
In other developments Friday:
• Polls indicated that the Israeli government is losing domestic support for its conduct of the conflict against Hezbollah, and doubt is growing among Israelis that they are winning the war. One survey, by the independent Dahaf Institute, said Olmert's personal approval rating dropped from 73 percent to 66 percent.
• The U.N.'s World Food Program said civilians cut off by fighting in south Lebanon find themselves in increasingly desperate conditions as the region remains inaccessible to aid agencies.
• U.N. humanitarian chief Jan Egeland said the anger on all sides in the Middle East is the greatest he has seen in two decades of trying to help the troubled region make peace.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why Do They Want To Kill Us?:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2006/08/10/why-do-they-want-to-kill-us.php
http://www.nowarforisrael.com
http://nomorewarforisrael.blogspot.com
Irmep - AIPAC Espionage Case Dismissal Gambit Fails:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2006/08/11/irmep-aipac-espionage-case-dismissal-gambit-fails.php
Last edited by Alpha on Sun Sep 03, 2006 5:52 am; edited 19 times in total | |  | | Alpha | | Posted: Mon Aug 07, 2006 9:54 pm Post subject: Bush Wants Wider War |
| http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/080206.html
Bush Wants Wider War
By Robert Parry
August 3, 2006
George W. Bush and his neoconservative advisers saw the conflict between Israel and Hezbollah as an opportunity to expand the conflict into Syria and possibly achieve a long-sought “regime change” in Damascus, but Israel’s leadership balked at the scheme, according to Israeli sources.
One Israeli source said Bush’s interest in spreading the war to Syria was considered “nuts” by some senior Israeli officials, although Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has generally shared Bush’s hard-line strategy against Islamic militants.
After rebuffing Bush’s suggestion about attacking Syria, the Israeli government settled on a strategy of mounting a major assault in southern Lebanon aimed at rooting out Hezbollah guerrillas who have been firing Katyusha rockets into northern Israel.
In an article on July 30, the Jerusalem Post hinted at the Israeli rejection of Bush’s suggestion of a wider war in Syria. “Defense officials told the Post last week that they were receiving indications from the US that America would be interested in seeing Israel attack Syria,” the newspaper reported.
On July 18, Consortiumnews.com reported that the Israel-Lebanon conflict had revived the Bush administration's neoconservative hopes that a new path had opened “to achieve a prized goal that otherwise appeared to be blocked for them – military assaults on Syria and Iran aimed at crippling those governments.”
The article went on to say:
After the fall of Baghdad in April 2003 – after only three weeks of fighting – the question posed by some Bush administration officials was whether the U.S. military should go “left or right,” to Syria or Iran. Some joked that “real men go to Tehran.”
According to the neocon strategy, “regime change” in Syria and Iran, in turn, would undermine Hezbollah, the Shiite militia that controls much of southern Lebanon, and would strengthen Israel’s hand in dictating peace terms to the Palestinians.
But the emergence of a powerful insurgency in Iraq – and a worsening situation for U.S. forces in Afghanistan – stilled the neoconservative dream of making George W. Bush a modern-day Alexander conquering the major cities of the Middle East, one after another.
Bush’s invasion of Iraq also unwittingly enhanced the power of Iran’s Shiite government by eliminating its chief counterweight, the Sunni regime of Saddam Hussein. With Iran’s Shiite allies in control of the Iraqi government and a Shiite-led government also in Syria, the region’s balance between the two rival Islamic sects was thrown out of whack.
The neocon dream of “regime change” in Syria and Iran never died, however. It stirred when Bush accused Syria of assisting Iraqi insurgents and when he insisted that Iran submit its nuclear research to strict international controls. The border conflict between Israel and Lebanon now has let Bush toughen his rhetoric again against Syria and Iran.
In an unguarded moment during the G-8 summit in Russia on July 17, Bush – speaking with his mouth full of food and annoyed by suggestions about United Nations peacekeepers – told British Prime Minister Tony Blair “what they need to do is get Syria to get Hezbollah to stop doing this shit.”
Not realizing that a nearby microphone was turned on, Bush also complained about suggestions for a cease-fire and an international peacekeeping force. “We’re not blaming Israel and we’re not blaming the Lebanese government,” Bush said, suggesting that the blame should fall on others, presumably Hezbollah, Syria and Iran.
Meanwhile, John Bolton, Bush’s ambassador to the United Nations, suggested that the United States would only accept a multilateral U.N. force if it had the capacity to take on Hezbollah's backers in Syria and Iran.
“The real problem is Hezbollah,” Bolton said. “Would it [a U.N. force] be empowered to deal with countries like Syria and Iran that support Hezbollah?” [NYT, July 18, 2006]
Strategy Meetings
Though the immediate conflict between Israel and Hezbollah was touched off by a Hezbollah cross-border raid on July 12 that captured two Israeli soldiers, the longer-term U.S.-Israeli strategy can be traced back to the May 23, 2006, meetings between Olmert and Bush in Washington.
At those meetings, Olmert discussed with Bush Israel’s plans for revising its timetable for setting final border arrangements with the Palestinians, putting those plans on the back burner while moving the Iranian nuclear program to the front burner.
In effect, Olmert informed Bush that 2006 would be the year for stopping Iran’s progress toward a nuclear bomb and 2007 would be the year for redrawing Israel’s final borders. That schedule fit well with Bush’s priorities, which may require some dramatic foreign policy success before the November congressional elections.
At a joint press conference with Bush on May 23, Olmert said “this is a moment of truth” for addressing Iran’s alleged ambitions to build a nuclear bomb.
“The Iranian threat is not only a threat to Israel, it is a threat to the stability of the Middle East and the entire world,” Olmert said. “The international community cannot tolerate a situation where a regime with a radical ideology and a long tradition of irresponsible conduct becomes a nuclear weapons state.”
Olmert also said he was prepared to give the Palestinians some time to accept Israel’s conditions for renewed negotiations on West Bank borders, but – if Palestinian officials didn’t comply – Israel was prepared to act unilaterally.
The prime minister said Israel would “remove most of the [West Bank] settlements which are not part of the major Israeli population centers in Judea and Samaria. The settlements within the population centers would remain under Israeli control and become part of the state of Israel, as part of the final status agreement.”
In other words, Israel would annex some of the most desirable parts of the West Bank regardless of Palestinian objections. That meant the Israelis would need to soften up Hamas, the Islamic militants who won the last Palestinian elections, and their supporters in the Islamic world – especially Hezbollah, Syria and Iran.
In a speech to a joint session of Congress, Olmert added that the possibility of Iran building a nuclear weapon was “an existential threat” to Israel, meaning that Israel believed its very existence was in danger.
Nuclear Face-Off
Even before the May 23 meetings, Bush was eyeing a confrontation with Iran as part of his revised strategy for remaking the Middle East. Bush was staring down Iran’s hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad over demands Iran back off its nuclear research.
By spring 2006, Bush was reportedly weighing military options for bombing Iran’s nuclear facilities. But the President encountered resistance from senior levels of the U.S. military, which feared the consequences, including the harm that might come to more than 130,000 U.S. troops bogged down in neighboring Iraq.
There was also alarm among U.S. generals over the White House resistance to removing tactical nuclear weapons as an option against Iran.
As investigative reporter Seymour Hersh wrote in The New Yorker, a number of senior U.S. officers were troubled by administration war planners who believed “bunker-busting” tactical nuclear weapons, known as B61-11s, were the only way to destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities buried deep underground.
“Every other option, in the view of the nuclear weaponeers, would leave a gap,” a former senior intelligence official told Hersh. “‘Decisive’ is the key word of the Air Force’s planning. It’s a tough decision. But we made it in Japan.”
This former official said the White House refused to remove the nuclear option from the plans despite objections from the Joint Chiefs of Staff. “Whenever anybody tries to get it out, they’re shouted down,” the ex-official said. [New Yorker, April 17, 2006]
By late April, however, the Joint Chiefs finally got the White House to agree that using nuclear weapons to destroy Iran’s uranium-enrichment plant at Natanz, less than 200 miles south of Tehran, was politically unacceptable, Hersh reported.
“Bush and Cheney were dead serious about the nuclear planning,” one former senior intelligence official said.
But – even without the nuclear option – senior military officials still worried about a massive bombing campaign against Iran. Hersh wrote:
“Inside the Pentagon, senior commanders have increasingly challenged the President’s plans, according to active-duty and retired officers and officials. The generals and admirals have told the Administration that the bombing campaign will probably not succeed in destroying Iran’s nuclear program. They have also warned that an attack could lead to serious economic, political, and military consequences for the United States.”
Hersh quoted a retired four-star general as saying, “The system is starting to sense the end of the road, and they don’t want to be condemned by history. They want to be able to say, ‘We stood up.’ ” [New Yorker, July 10, 2006]
The most immediate concern of U.S. military leaders was that air strikes against Iran could prompt retaliation against American troops in Iraq. U.S. military trainers would be especially vulnerable since they work within Iraqi military and police units dominated by Shiites who are sympathetic to Iran.
Iran also could respond to a bombing campaign by cutting off oil supplies, sending world oil prices soaring and throwing the world economy into chaos.
Israel’s Arsenal
While the Joint Chiefs may have had success in getting the White House to remove the use of nuclear weapons from its list of options on Iran, the rising tensions between Israel and Iran may have put the nuclear option back on the table – since Israel has the largest and most sophisticated nuclear arsenal in the Middle East.
As Hersh reported, “The Israelis have insisted for years that Iran has a clandestine program to build a bomb, and will do so as soon as it can. Israeli officials have emphasized that their ‘redline’ is the moment Iran masters the nuclear fuel cycle, acquiring the technical ability to produce weapons-grade uranium.”
In spring 2006, Iran announced that it had enriched uranium to the 3.6 percent level sufficient for nuclear energy but well below the 90-percent level for making atomic bombs. The U.S. intelligence community believes that Iran is still years and possibly a decade away from the capability of building a nuclear bomb.
Still, Iran’s technological advance convinced some Israeli strategists that it was imperative to destroy Iran’s program now. Yet to do so, Israel faces the same need for devastating explosive power, thus raising the specter again of using a nuclear bomb.
One interpretation of the Lebanese-Israeli conflict is that Bush and Olmert seized on the Hezbollah raid as a pretext for a pre-planned escalation that will lead to bombing campaigns against Syria and Iran, justified by their backing of Hezbollah.
In that view, Bush found himself stymied by U.S. military objections to targeting Iran’s nuclear facilities outside any larger conflict. However, if the bombing of Iran develops as an outgrowth of a tit-for-tat expansion of a war in which Israel’s existence is at stake, strikes against Iranian targets would be more palatable to the American public.
The end game would be U.S.-Israeli aerial strikes against Iran’s nuclear facilities with the goal of crippling its nuclear program and humiliating Ahmadinejad.
Strangling an Axis
While U.S. officials have been careful not to link the Lebanon conflict to any possible military action against Iran’s nuclear facilities, they have spoken privately about using the current conflict to counter growing Iranian influence.
Washington Post foreign policy analyst Robin Wright wrote that U.S. officials told her that “for the United States, the broader goal is to strangle the axis of Hezbollah, Hamas, Syria and Iran, which the Bush administration believes is pooling resources to change the strategic playing field in the Middle East. …
“Whatever the outrage on the Arab streets, Washington believes it has strong behind-the-scenes support among key Arab leaders also nervous about the populist militants – with a tacit agreement that the timing is right to strike.
“‘What is out there is concern among conservative Arab allies that there is a hegemonic Persian threat [running] through Damascus, through the southern suburbs of Beirut and to the Palestinians in Hamas,’ said a senior U.S. official.” [Washington Post, July 16, 2006]
Another school of thought holds that Iran may have encouraged the Hezbollah raid that sparked the Lebanese-Israeli conflict as a way to demonstrate the “asymmetrical warfare” that could be set in motion if the Bush administration attacks Iran.
But Hezbollah’s firing of rockets as far as the port city of Haifa, deep inside Israel, has touched off new fears among Israelis and their allies about the danger of more powerful missiles carrying unconventional warheads, possibly hitting heavily populated areas, such as Tel Aviv.
That fear of missile attacks by Islamic extremists dedicated to Israel’s destruction has caused Israel to start “dusting off it nukes,” one source told me.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the Associated Press and Newsweek. His latest book, Secrecy & Privilege: Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq, can be ordered at secrecyandprivilege.com. It's also available at Amazon.com, as is his 1999 book, Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & 'Project Truth.' | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Tue Aug 08, 2006 9:57 am Post subject: The loser in Lebanon: The Atlantic alliance |
| The loser in Lebanon: The Atlantic alliance
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HH08Ak01.html
The loser in Lebanon: The Atlantic alliance
By Mark Perry and Alastair Crooke
The United States and France have produced a United Nations resolution of sorts aimed at ending the Israeli-Hezbollah conflict, but the negotiations between US Ambassador to the UN John Bolton and France's Jean-Marc de La Sabliere nearly ended in disaster.
Through the course of a single week, the US and France came as close to a bitter split over Middle East policy as they had on the eve of the Iraq war. At issue in the confrontation was a US insistence that an international force (led by France) be deployed to Lebanon prior to the declaration of a ceasefire - a requirement the French thought ludicrous. They weren't the only ones.
"The position that we're taking in the UN is just nuts," a former
White House official close to the US decision-making process said during the negotiations. "The US wants to put international forces on the ground in the middle of the conflict, before there's a ceasefire. The reasoning at the White House is that the international force could weigh on the side of the Israelis - could enforce Hezbollah's disarmament."
All of this, this former official noted, "is covered over by this talk about how we need a substantive agreement that addresses the fundamental problems and that will last. But no one is willing to say exactly what this means."
A former US Central Intelligence Agency officer confirmed this view: "I am under the impression that [President] George [W] Bush and [Secretary of State] Condoleezza Rice were surprised when the Europeans disagreed with the US position - they were running around saying, 'But how can you disagree, don't you understand? Hezbollah is a terrorist organization.'"
The normally taciturn La Sabliere was particularly enraged when Bolton indirectly accused him of naivety. Responding to a reporter's question about the French position calling for a ceasefire prior to a troop deployment, Bolton was at his arrogant best: "I think it simplistic, among other things. I want somebody to address the problem on how to get a ceasefire with a terrorist organization."
Bolton then took a leaf from Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's 2003 criticism of France and Germany as "old Europe" - calling the French ceasefire initiative "old thinking". La Sabliere not only bristled at Bolton's language, he threatened to end all discussions with the US over ending the Lebanon conflict.
While Bolton and La Sabliere eventually buried their differences, the US-French face-off reflected deep-rooted and long-lasting French resentments over America's apparent willingness to allow the conflict to run its course - under the belief that it is only a matter of time before Israel destroyed Hezbollah.
"The Bush people have never heard a shot fired in anger, and it's apparent," an official in the UN Secretary General's Office noted. "The French were quite fearful that one miscalculation, one stray rocket could set the region on fire. No one in Washington seemed willing to admit that as a possibility."
Bolton's continued "cheerleading for Israel" didn't help, according to this same official. "It's a real row that started with Bolton's statement that you couldn't compare the deaths of Lebanese to the deaths of Israelis," the official said. "He implied that because Lebanon harbored Hezbollah, Lebanese lives were forfeit. It was a stupid thing to say. It tore the scab off the wound."
Bolton refused to back down, reiterating that the death of Lebanese civilians, while "tragic and unfortunate", was understandable considering Israel's right to "self-defense". In any event, Bolton went on to say, Israel did not "desire" the deaths of innocents - unlike Hezbollah.
The US press was quick to pick up on this, parroting the administration's line. Even the venerable Washington Post implied that seven Canadians who had died as a result of Israeli air strikes in the war's first days were of lesser value than other Westerners - since they were "Lebanese holding Canadian passports".
The French, as well as the British, also resented what they viewed as Israel's "high-handed" lecturing of the Europeans on their own constituent problems. The European anger boiled over, according to one UN diplomat, during an exchange between Israeli Ambassador Dan Gillerman and a French official during a meeting on the composition of a proposed international force.
While the diplomat would not recount the words used by Gillerman, he confirmed that the phrases Gillerman used "he repeated in the media". The diplomat was referring to Gillerman's remarks during an appearance on CNN, where he was spurred on by host Anderson Cooper's comparison of Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah to Adolf Hitler. "I certainly hope the world understands [that] this war is not just about the safety of Israel or the freedom of Lebanon, it is about preserving civilization as we know it," Gillerman said.
"When you see Hezbollah flags in London and in Brussels and in Paris and you see that most of the demonstrators in Trafalgar Square and in the other cities are Muslims, I would advise these European countries to look very carefully at what is happening in Beirut today because to a very great extent, what they're seeing in Beirut, what they're seeing happening in Lebanon, what Hezbollah has done to the Lebanese people is really just a preview of what they may expect if they don't take care of that problem as they say in this country, soon to be seen in theaters everywhere."
Even the British were enraged: "Take care of that problem? Take care of that problem? What would Ambassador Gillerman suggest we do with our Muslims? That's a hell of a thing for him to say," a British member of parliament sputtered.
Bolton's inflammatory statements, US insistence on the deployment of an international force prior to a ceasefire, and Gillerman's offensive hectoring of European diplomats deepened French suspicions over US-Israeli aims at the height of negotiations over a UN resolution.
But despite his offensive characterizations of the Muslim problem, Gillerman is right in one sense - the shifting demographics of Europe, where Muslim minorities constitute increasingly powerful voting blocs, is beginning to exact a toll on America's long-standing ties with its erstwhile allies. The French, in particular, are painfully aware that their Muslim minorities are capable of making their presence felt, particularly if they believe their political grievances are not being aired.
"The difference between the US and Europe on how to handle the Middle East is stark," a Finnish diplomat said during a recent private meeting in Washington. "In the US your political parties worry about the Jewish vote - in Europe, political parties worry about the Muslim vote. It's just that simple."
Some of these concerns, and the divide that Europe's new demographics are cleaving between Washington and European capitals, is now finally beginning to make its way into the press. At issue is US and Israeli terminology, which tends to paint Muslims as terrorists and Israelis as Westerners fighting for civilization.
"It's not helpful to couch this war in the language of international terrorism," UN deputy secretary Mark Malloch Brown said last Tuesday. His voice edged with anger, Brown hinted that the United Kingdom could be forced to rethink its by now predictable support for the US initiative.
"Britain has tried very, very hard to keep with the US on this; no one respects the reasons for that entirely, but you have a Security Council and international public opinion, while fully understanding what has been done to Israel, now believes strongly in a cessation to hostilities."
After hesitating for only a moment, Brown issued a warning on a future British vote - stating almost baldly that Prime Minister Tony Blair's government might decide to side with Europe over the United States. "This is where the UK is a crucial swing vote," he said. "When it comes behind a cessation of hostilities, it makes it that much harder for the last stalwarts to hold out."
The Saturday announcement that France and the United States had agreed on a draft resolution has not helped to allay these growing fears. The draft resolution finesses the divide between America's call for the deployment of an international force and France's call for a ceasefire - saying that there should be a "full cessation of hostilities" prior to the tabling of a second resolution, which will deal with the more difficult political issues posed by the Israeli-Hezbollah war.
In truth, a number of UN diplomats concede that the battle between the US and France inside the Security Council only diverted the attention of both countries from the conflict in the Middle East. Getting Arab nations to sign on to the resolution was postponed in order to get the resolution agreed to. Nor, it seems, were the Lebanese consulted at all during the process. The resolution, in fact, seems to satisfy the French and Americans - but no one else, and so angered Arab diplomats that Amr Moussa, the head of the Arab League, denounced it publicly, while privately calling the resolution "a surrender document".
A spokesman for Hezbollah in Beirut was even blunter, saying that the resolution was "dead on arrival". He added, "The French caved in to American and Israeli pressure. Israel gets to stay on our land. We are required to disarm. Why isn't an international force deployed in northern Israel? Our arms get cut off and the US gets to fly cluster munitions into Ben Gurion [Airport in Tel Aviv]. Just who do they think is winning this war?"
For now, Condoleezza Rice is hailing the US-French draft as a symbol for US-European cooperation. But for many European diplomats, agreement on the draft resolution has only papered over a deepening rift between the United States and its European partners, with some European diplomats muttering that America's real goal is to induce the Europeans to wade into Lebanon on the side of a defanged and humiliated Israel.
Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert "bragged that Israel would destroy Hezbollah", a French diplomat said in Washington, "and if he can't do it that's his problem. I don't care what the secretary of state says, we're not going to do it for him."
There are more difficult days ahead - particularly when the US and France square off in the coming week over the draft of a second resolution. With nearly everyone now wondering whether the US position in the Middle East is unraveling, one UN diplomat said the Israeli-Hezbollah conflict may spell the end of an era in which the US and Europe established a tradition of diplomatic cooperation: "We might as well face up to it. Sooner or later the United States is going to have to choose what is more important - its strategic alliance with Europe, or its friendship with Israel."
No matter what the answer to that question might be, the very fact that it has been asked means that the real loser in the current Middle East conflict is the Atlantic alliance.
Mark Perry and Alastair Crooke are co-directors of the Conflicts Forum, based in Beirut, London and Washington, DC. They are the authors of the Asia Times Online series How to lose the 'war on terror'. | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Thu Aug 10, 2006 1:37 am Post subject: |
| Subject: Re: Fw: APOCALYPSE NEAR (Chomsky)
smacko <smacko9@comcast.net> wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: brian305
To: OpenMindNews@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, August 09, 2006 5:21 PM
Subject: [OpenMindNews] APOCALYPSE NEAR
This is an excerpt of an interview with Noam Chomsky posted on
Information Clearinghouse.
What is the next chapter in this middle-eastern conflict as you see
it?
"I do not know of anyone foolhardy enough to predict. The US and
Israel are stirring up popular forces that are very ominous, and
which will only gain in power and become more extremist if the US
and Israel persist in demolishing any hope of realization of
Palestinian national rights, and destroying Lebanon. It should also
be recognized that Washington's primary concern, as in the past, is
not Israel and Lebanon, but the vast energy resources of the Middle
East, recognized 60 years ago to be a "stupendous source of
strategic power" and "one of the greatest material prizes in world
history."
"We can expect with confidence that the US will continue to do what
it can to control this unparalleled source of strategic power. That
may not be easy. The remarkable incompetence of Bush planners has
created a catastrophe in Iraq, for their own interests as well. They
are even facing the possibility of the ultimate nightmare: a loose
Shi'a alliance controlling the world's major energy supplies, and
independent of Washington - or even worse, establishing closer links
with the China-based Asian Energy Security Grid and Shanghai
Cooperation Council.
"The results could be truly apocalyptic. And even in tiny Lebanon,
the leading Lebanese academic scholar of Hizbullah, and a harsh
critic of the organization, describes the current conflict
in "apocalyptic terms," warning that possibly "All hell would be let
loose" if the outcome of the US-Israel campaign leaves a situation
in which "the Shiite community is seething with resentment at
Israel, the United States and the government that it perceives as
its betrayer.
"It is no secret that in past years, Israel has helped to destroy
secular Arab nationalism and to create Hizbullah and Hamas, just as
US violence has expedited the rise of extremist Islamic
fundamentalism and jihad terror. The reasons are understood. There
are constant warnings about it by Western intelligence agencies, and
by the leading specialists on these topics.
"One can bury one's head in the sand and take comfort in a "wall-to-
wall consensus" that what we do is "just and moral" (Maoz), ignoring
the lessons of recent history, or simple rationality. Or one can
face the facts, and approach dilemmas which are very serious by
peaceful means. They are available. Their success can never be
guaranteed. But we can be reasonably confident that viewing the
world through a bombsight will bring further misery and suffering,
perhaps even 'apocalypse soon.'"
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article14462.htm
Chomsky doing what he does as usual.. Downplaying the war for Israel aspect (as conveyed via the 'A Clean Break' agenda which Mearsheimer and Walt discuss as well in their excellent paper on the power/influence of the pro-Israel lobby) and focusing the attention on the 'war for oil' aspect instead (yet, Chomsky knows full well about JINSA and similar because we discussed such when we briefly met in person, but I haven't seen him write about JINSA once). Chomsky won't address Bamford's mention of 'A Clean Break' from Bamford's excellent 'A Pretext for War' book as well.. At least there are other Jews who are sincere enough to address the truth..
Bamford discusses 'A Clean Break'/war for Israel agenda on MSNBC's 'Countdown with Keith Olbermann':
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2006/08/07/bamford-discusses-a-clean-break-on-msnbc-s-countdown.php
"A Clean Break" :
What is "A Clean Break?" Author James Bamford explains on MSNBC's Keith Olbermann's Countdown show:
http://www.corvuswire.com/cleanbreak.htm
Bush and Condi Clash over Israel:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2006/08/09/bush-and-condi-clash-over-israel.php | | | | | ©2002-2009 WarWithoutEnd.co.uk |
