[Peace-discuss] Democrats and Israeli lobby for war

[C. G. Estabrook]

[Naturally, our congressional representative, Tim Johnson, voted for 
this bit of war-mongering -- as did almost all the Democrats in the 
House.  (We should ask Johnson's putative opponent, David Gill, whether 
he would have voted for it -- or would he have joined the 15 Democrats 
and 6 Republicans who stood against it?) --CGE]

    April 28, 2006
    Steppingstone to War
    House passes 'Iran Freedom Support Act'
    by Justin Raimondo

It is "a steppingstone to war," said Rep. Dennis Kucinich, during the 
debate over the so-called Iran Freedom Support Act, and if this vote is 
any measure of the degree of congressional opposition to the looming 
prospect of war with Tehran, then we have a lot to worry about.

Only 21 members of the House stood up against the overwhelming 
bipartisan wave of support for the bill, which would impose economic 
sanctions on the Iranians – and openly proclaims the goal of effecting 
"regime change." Rep. Ron Paul, a Texas Republican, said the bill 
reminds him of a 1998 congressional resolution – the Iraq Liberation Act 
– that paved the way for the Iraqi debacle. Yet most of the "antiwar" 
contingent in the House of Representatives caved and voted in favor, 
including Democrats John Conyers, Maxine Waters, Jack Murtha, Bernie 
Sanders, Barbara Lee, and Lynn Woolsey.

The bill was opposed by the Bush administration, which officially holds 
that diplomacy is the way to go on the Iranian nukes issue. Thus it was 
supported by many Democrats, including the voluble Tom Lantos 
(D-Calif.), a co-author of the bill along with Florida Republican Ileana 
Ros-Lehtinen. Passage is a major goal of AIPAC, Israel's premier 
lobbying organization in the U.S., which for the past two years has 
featured the alleged Iranian threat to America as its convention theme: 
this year's conclave featured a multimedia exhibit supposedly 
dramatizing how Iran is "pursuing nuclear weapons and how it can be 
stopped." As Middle East expert Trita Parsi, of the John Hopkins School 
for Advanced International Studies, put it: "I don't see any other major 
groups behind this legislation that have had any impact on it."

The Israelis have made no secret of their efforts to get Uncle Sam to 
launch an attack. If you guys don't, a number of Israeli officials have 
implied, then we will. This last, however, is an empty threat, as the 
Israelis don't have the military capacity to wipe out Iran's widely 
dispersed nuclear research facilities in a single blow, and, in any 
case, are more than likely to wait until the last possible moment before 
they take the unusual step of fighting their own war. After all, why 
should they, when the U.S. is perfectly willing to sacrifice American 
troops and treasure on the altar of Israel's alleged national security 
interests?

Iran represents a threat to nothing and no one but Israel, and everybody 
knows it. It is likewise universally acknowledged that the one Middle 
Eastern power we definitely know to be in possession of a substantial 
nuclear stockpile is Israel. The Iranians, then, could be seen as 
engaging in a defensive policy of deterrence: after all, Israel has 
never even acknowledged its nukes, let alone declared a policy of "no 
first strike." Unlike the Israelis, the Iranians are signatories of the 
Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. But of course we aren't allowed to 
mention that, because depicting the government of Israel as a gang of 
duplicitous scheming aggressors intent on holding a nuclear sword of 
Damocles over the entire Middle East would be "anti-Semitic," according 
to the latest definition of anti-Semitism, albeit all too true.

The timing on this vote is significant on two counts. Coming as it did 
at a time when the debate about Israel's inordinate influence over U.S. 
foreign policy is getting heated, this vote demonstrates that, as John 
J. Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt point out in "The Israel Lobby":

"AIPAC, which is a de facto agent for a foreign government, has a 
stranglehold on the U.S. Congress. Open debate about U.S. policy towards 
Israel does not occur there, even though that policy has important 
consequences for the entire world."

The sheer power of what Mearsheimer and Walt call "the Lobby" is further 
demonstrated by the general public revulsion against the consequences of 
our very similar policy in Iraq. The unpopularity of our military 
presence in the Middle East has not deterred politicians from jumping on 
the war-with-Tehran bandwagon. Even as (some) Democratic lawmakers decry 
the occupation of Iraq and call for a timetable for U.S. troop 
withdrawal, they join in the war whoops of the neoconservatives who are 
pushing to ignite a new war with Tehran. So much for the Democratic 
Party as a vehicle for antiwar sentiment.

While the Iran Freedom Support Act contains language explicitly 
disavowing the charge that it represents a blank check for war with 
Iran, that is precisely what it does. It sets the stage for isolating 
Iran economically and paves the way for the creation of an Iranian 
version of Ahmed Chalabi and his "heroes in error." We will, once again, 
pay for the privilege of being lied to. As that old Peter, Paul, and 
Mary song goes: "When will they ever learn? When will they ever learn?"

In the Senate, the primary proponents of this bill are likely to be 
Hillary Clinton and the rabidly neocon wing of the Republican Party. 
Hillary came out for sanctions long ago, and, in a fiery speech to 
AIPAC, stopped just short of calling for war with Iran if the mullahs 
did not cease and desist. Go here for an entirely plausible "future 
history" account of "the tragedy that followed Hillary Clinton's bombing 
of Iran in 2009." The matter-of-fact opening of Timothy Garton Ash's 
near-future scenario is frighteningly plausible:

"May 7, 2009, will surely go down in history alongside September 11, 
2001. '5/7,' as it inevitably became known, saw massive suicide bombings 
in Tel Aviv, London, and New York, as well as simultaneous attacks on 
the remaining Western troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. Total casualties 
were estimated at around 10,000 dead and many more wounded. The attacks, 
which included the explosion of a so-called dirty bomb in London, were 
orchestrated by a Tehran-based organization for 'martyrdom-seeking 
operations' established in 2004. '5/7' was the Islamic Republic of 
Iran's response to the bombing of its nuclear facilities, which 
President Hillary Clinton had ordered in March 2009."

Seymour Hersh and others seem to think the Bush administration will beat 
President Hillary to it, and that military operations involving both the 
Americans and the Israelis have already commenced. The Iran Freedom 
Support Act would merely drag these covert activities up into the 
sunlight, although their roots would stay submerged in the murky 
underworld of shadowy exile groups and Pentagon subcontractors. Passage 
of the Act would give rise to a whole new sector of the democracy-export 
business. Iranian exile groups – including monarchists, Marxists, and a 
motley collection of alleged "democrats" – would vie for funds and the 
American imprimatur. A new gold rush for the democracy exporters would 
commence, shifting the scene of the action from Iraq to Iran, even as 
the War Party sets its sights on the latter.

Let no one say they were against this war with Iran, when it comes, if 
they didn't vote with the heroic 21 naysayers. These sanctions against 
Iran are but a prelude to war, just as sanctions were the first step in 
the long run-up to the invasion of Iraq. However, we may not enjoy such 
a lengthy interval between cause and effect this time around. Events are 
proceeding at an ever accelerating pace, with Secretary of State 
Condoleezza Rice now saying the time for talking is over and the time 
for action has begun – not military action (at least not yet), but 
action by the Security Council of the United Nations, whose "credibility 
is at stake." I wonder if that same standard applies to the many UN 
resolutions that Israel continues to defy. Hasn't the UN already lost 
all credibility when such brazen defiance has gone unnoticed by the 
Security Council?

Let no one say they weren't warned. Using Iraq as a "model" for the 
methodology of the War Party, we can see, when it comes to Iran, that 
all the elements are falling neatly into place. Once again, we have the 
specter of WMD and their possible existence or nonexistence: a mirage 
projected by the credulous Western "mainstream" media, one that is sure 
to dissipate only after we're waist-deep in an Iranian quagmire. Another 
familiar phenomenon: dubious exile groups, along the lines of the 
infamous Iraqi National Congress, only this time even wackier, wilder, 
and woolier.

The Bush administration is going too slow for the Lobby's taste, and the 
House vote is a good indication of their displeasure. In spite of 
widespread antiwar sentiment and a general disgust with the notion of 
meddling in the affairs of other nations, the War Party has effectively 
seized control not only of major policymaking bodies of the U.S. 
government, but also both major political parties. Mearsheimer and Walt 
describe the campaign by Israel's amen corner to rush us into another war:

"The Bush administration has responded to the Lobby's pressure by 
working overtime to shut down Iran's nuclear program. But Washington has 
had little success, and Iran seems determined to get a nuclear arsenal. 
As a result, the Lobby has intensified its pressure on the U.S. 
government, using all of the strategies in its playbook."

One new strategy is to be prepared to abandon the Republicans if a 
sufficiently warlike Democrat – such as Hillary Clinton – wins the nod 
for a White House run. As for this White House, while it may have 
developed plans for an attack on Iran, the current administration seems 
eager to draw out the diplomatic dance as long as possible, even in the 
face of what Mearsheimer and Walt depict as a Katrina-like storm of 
propaganda and political pressure:

"Op-eds and articles now warn of imminent dangers from a nuclear Iran, 
caution against any appeasement of a 'terrorist' regime, and hint darkly 
of preventive action should diplomacy fail. The Lobby is also pushing 
Congress to approve the Iran Freedom Support Act, which would expand 
existing sanctions on Iran. Israeli officials also warn they may take 
preemptive action should Iran continue down the nuclear road, hints 
partly intended to keep Washington focused on this issue."

The Lobby is on the march, and war is in the wind. The cries of the 
banshee pundits and the sonorous resolutions coming out of 
Israeli-occupied Capitol Hill, are portents of the coming storm. 
Mearsheimer and Walt, two distinguished professors from two of our 
nation's most prestigious universities, have been vilified by the Amen 
Corner and have had their thesis twisted and willfully misunderstood by 
ultra-Zionists and anti-Semites alike. They have admirably refused to 
get down in the gutter with such dishonest, agenda-driven scribblers, 
and instead have let their work speak for itself as a predictor and 
critic of U.S. policy in the Middle East:

"One might argue that Israel and the Lobby have not had much influence 
on U.S. policy toward Iran, because the United States has its own 
reasons to keep Iran from going nuclear. This is partly true, but Iran's 
nuclear ambitions do not pose an existential threat to the United 
States. If Washington could live with a nuclear Soviet Union, a nuclear 
China, or even a nuclear North Korea, then it can live with a nuclear 
Iran. And that is why the Lobby must keep constant pressure on U.S. 
politicians to confront Tehran. Iran and the United States would hardly 
be allies if the Lobby did not exist, but U.S. policy would be more 
temperate and preventive war would not be a serious option."

As for this essay's predictive value: in light of the knowledge that it 
was commissioned by The Atlantic magazine and written sometime last 
year, the section on the Iran nuke issue seems prescient, an ample 
demonstration of the paper's thesis – that the Israel lobby has hijacked 
American foreign policy, especially when it comes to the Middle East.

Mearsheimer and Walt's critique of U.S. policy, as distorted by 
neoconservative fealty to Israel, is more than borne out by the Iran 
nuke brouhaha. Iranian missiles trained on Tel Aviv, or even London, do 
not a threat to the U.S. make. It is doubtful they represent a plausible 
threat even to the targeted cities, as the threat of massive retaliation 
in kind would successfully deter such a heinous act, just as it deterred 
Stalin and his successors for half a century.

It is both alarming and baffling that we have any number of lobbies 
operating out of Washington on behalf of dozens of foreign countries: 
not only Israel, but all sorts of overseas potentates and unsavory 
dictators of one sort or another have their bought-and-paid-for Amen 
Corners in the form of at least one pricey public relations firm. But I 
have yet to hear of a foreign policy lobby that operates on behalf of 
Americans – that looks out for exclusively American interests. Why isn't 
there a countering force arrayed against all these foreign agents and 
their domestic allies who push for the narrow interests of the 
"homeland" – usually at Uncle Sam's expense? Who will lobby Congress to 
start putting America first?

Find this article at:
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=8914