[Peace-discuss] Diplomatic revolution

[C. G. Estabrook]

For fifteen years in the 1950s and '60s America's chief client in the Mideast 
was Iran, not Israel.  The replacement of the former by the latter, which began 
in the late sixties, was not complete until the  overthrow of the US puppet in 
Iran in the seventies.

The overriding goal of US policy in the Mideast for more than fifty years has 
been and continues to be control of Mideast energy resources -- not the support 
of Israel.  (It's because Mearsheimer and Walt ignore the former point that they 
get the latter wrong.)  It may happen, and soon, that a new alliance with Iran, 
like that which existed for a generation, will serve constant American interests.

It's been suggested that if the new Netanyahu government in Israel shows itself 
recalcitrant in following orders, the USG may move towards a rapprochement with 
Iran (which will soon have a new government too).  A friendly Iran will (a) add 
its own energy resources to those influenced/controlled by the US; (b) aid in 
the administration of a pacified, Shia-governed Iraq; (c) supply logistic, 
diplomatic, and even military aid in the geopolitical control of Afghanistan and 
hence Pakistan; (d) solidify the alliance with India via the Iran–Pakistan–India 
gas pipeline ("Peace pipeline"); and (e) prevent the incorporation of the region 
into the Asian energy and defense grid promoted by the Shanghai Cooperation 
Organization. It will also dampen the much-trumpeted concern about Iranian 
nuclear power (which the US supported under the Shah).

The phrase "Diplomatic Revolution" is commonly applied to the reversal of 
longstanding alliances in Europe in 1756: France and Prussia were allied against 
Britain and Austria in the War of Austrian Succession (1740-48), but France and 
Austria opposed Britain and Prussia in the Seven Years' War (1756-63). British 
subjects in North America called the latter the French and Indian War; it formed 
the background of the American Revolution.

The Obama administration has conspicuously avoided appointing a pro-Israel hack 
like Dennis Ross to be proconsul for Iran as Richard Holbrooke is for AfPak (or 
even George Mitchell for Israel/Palestine.  Now comes the following:

===========

<http://www.richardsilverstein.com/tikun_olam/2009/02/22/obama-picks-israel-critic-for-senior-intelligence-post/>

	OBAMA PICKS ISRAEL CRITIC FOR SENIOR INTELLIGENCE POST
	Feb 22nd, 2009 by Richard Silverstein

Oh, the Israel lobby is up in arms over this one! Former U.S. ambassador to 
Saudi Arabia, Chas W. Freeman, will be appointed to head the National 
Intelligence Council. The Council prepares national intelligence estimates for 
the president, and in the Bush administration this became a pivotal and highly 
charged job. Thus, it is no accident that Obama has chosen an honest broker to 
tell him where in the world the most dangerous challenges are to U.S. interests. 
Dare we hope that several Israeli settler pro-terror groups might be added to 
the State Department list in the coming year?

JTA provides the "damning" evidence of Freeman's heresy:

In 2005 remarks to the National Council on U.S.-Arab Relations, Freeman said 
that "as long as the United States continues unconditionally to provide the 
subsidies and political protection that make the Israeli occupation and the 
high-handed and self-defeating policies it engenders possible, there is little, 
if any, reason to hope that anything resembling the former peace process can be 
resurrected. Israeli occupation and settlement of Arab lands is inherently violent.

And as long as such Israeli violence against Palestinians continues, it is 
utterly unrealistic to expect that Palestinians will stand down from violent 
resistance and retaliation against Israelis. Mr. Sharon is far from a stupid 
man; he understands this. So, when he sets the complete absence of Palestinian 
violence as a precondition for implementing the road map or any other 
negotiating process, he is deliberately setting a precondition he knows can 
never be met."

In 2008, in a speech to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Security 
Studies Program, he said, "We have reflexively supported the efforts of a series 
of right-wing Israeli governments to undo the Oslo accords and to pacify the 
Palestinians rather than make peace with them.

"The so-called 'two-state solution' is widely seen in the region as too late and 
too little. Too late, because so much land has been colonized by Israel that 
there is not enough left for a viable Palestinian state alongside Israel; too 
little, because what is on offer looks to Palestinians more like an Indian 
reservation than a country."

Imagine a senior U.S. intelligence officials using the term "colonization" and 
"Indian reservation" in relation to the Occupation. It's shocking. This is the 
Israel lobby's worst nightmare–that an honest broker will actually have a senior 
position in the administration and be able to impact U.S. policy, even in an 
indirect way, toward Israel.

And lest the lobby and Israel's supporters attempt to paint any misleading 
picture of what this means, we need to remember that Aipac's boy, Dennis Ross, 
is about to be appointed U.S. special envoy regarding Iran. Obama has not sold 
his soul to the Arabs or anything like that. He's merely attempting to do what 
previous U.S. presidents should do–keep a level playing field.

Israel is not used to this. It's used to getting its way when it comes to U.S. 
presidents and U.S. policy. It's used to having virtual veto power over 
personnel appointments it sees as potentially threatening to its interests. But 
it didn't get its way on this one. And this won't be the last time.

	###