[Peace-discuss] The Lobby strikes, again.

[Brussel Morton K.]

Those who believe, or doubt, that the Zionist Lobby has no real  
influence on U.S government policy should read the following piece,  
and then note the resignation of Charles Freeman from the National  
Intelligence Council ; I would recommend that you read his letter of  
resignation, at

    [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123672847973688515.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

2009-03-10
A Convenient Scapegoat

The past eight years have been so catastrophic for the United States  
that it is sometimes difficult to put things in perspective, but  
certain patterns do emerge. Starting in the summer of 2007, when Iraq  
was still in total chaos, Gen. Ray "Greater Than Napoleon" Odierno  
gave a series of press conferences in which he stated that Iran was  
providing weapons and training to both Shi'ite and Sunni insurgents.  
Charges that Iran was also supporting al-Qaeda soon followed, and both  
congressional and media critics were soon in full cry, leading to the  
Kyl-Lieberman amendment of September 2007, which all but declared war  
on Tehran.

The absurdity of Iran supporting Sunni terrorists who would sooner  
shoot a Shi'ite than a U.S. soldier did not in any way inhibit the  
spread of the story of Persian perfidy, which quickly spread  
throughout the mainstream media, confirming the carefully cultivated,  
widely held view that Tehran was killing Americans through its  
involvement in Iraq.


Now Iraq has calmed down, at least for the time being, and it is  
Afghanistan's turn to become the new "central front in the war against  
terrorism." And Iran is reported to be meddling again. If that sounds  
familiar, it should, because it is the same story being told all over  
again by pretty much the same journalists and talking heads. Iran is  
being portrayed as the evil force that is supporting the Taliban  
insurgency. That history would suggest the contrary, that Tehran is  
unlikely to forget that the Taliban murdered 11 Iranian diplomats in  
Mazar-e-Sharif in 1998 and that Taliban doctrine considers Shi'ites  
heretics who should be killed, apparently is not enough to ruin a good  
story.

The latest tale of Iranian evil intent surfaced in the Rupert Murdoch- 
owned Times of London on March 1 reporting that Iran is supplying the  
Taliban in Afghanistan with surface-to-air missiles capable of  
destroying helicopters. Journalist Michael Smith attributes his  
information to otherwise unidentified "American intelligence sources."  
But both the Pentagon and the British Defense Ministry claim to have  
no information confirming Smith's account, and the Times has in the  
past often served as a conduit for disinformation put out by the  
British and Israeli governments. The report suggests, based on no  
evidence whatsoever, that the Taliban wants to use the Russian-made  
SA-14 Gremlin missiles to launch a "spectacular" attack against ISAF  
forces. U.S. and NATO helicopters operating in Afghanistan are  
equipped with defensive systems to deflect missiles, but the SA-14 can  
apparently evade most counter-measures. According to theTimes story,  
the presence of SA-14s was first noted several weeks ago when parts  
from two of them were found during an American operation in western  
Afghanistan.

If effective mobile ground to air missiles were to be given to the  
Taliban, it would mark a major shift in the Afghan fighting, similar  
to the provision of Stingers to the mujahedeen to bring down Russian  
helicopters in the 1980s. But it is not all that simple. The SA-14 is  
not state-of-the-art weaponry. It has been around since 1974, and tens  
of thousands have been sold to countries all over the world, including  
every country in central Asia. Numerous SA-14s are also believed to be  
available in commercial arms markets. The link to Iran is far from  
demonstrated even if parts were found, suggesting that the story is a  
fabrication intended to further blacken Tehran's image and put more  
pressure on its government. The jump from finding some parts, if it is  
even true, to an active, state-supported Iranian program to provide a  
battlefield weapon that Tehran surely knows would trigger a  
devastating U.S. response is simply not credible.

And then there is the question of nuclear Iran, always a convenient  
fallback line if one wants to make a case for preemptive warfare. Not  
surprisingly, Israeli politicians and media have been leading the  
charge. In the recently completed election campaign, leaders of the  
four leading parties, ranging from Labor on the Left to Avigdor  
Lieberman's Yisrael Beiteinu on the far Right, all denounced the  
Iranian threat and pledged to deal with it by military means if  
necessary. That Israel does not have the military wherewithal to  
attack Iran unilaterally and also has the sticky problem of requiring  
Iraq overflight means that the United States would have to be involved  
in any such mission. So far, the Obama administration has not signaled  
its willingness to become engaged in yet another preemptive war, but  
rest assured that AIPAC and its friends are working to overcome that  
obstacle.


The truculent Israeli position was dutifully picked up by the American  
media and replayed widely in spite of the report by the United Nations  
International Atomic Energy Agency that Iran's stockpile of low-level  
enriched uranium is all accounted for and there is no indication of  
any weapons program. President Obama's reticence notwithstanding, when  
Israel wants war, Washington generally follows Tel Aviv's line.  
Negotiations with Iran promised by candidate Obama may already be  
politically dead, designed to fail if and when they start. Hillary  
Clinton has clearly indicated that she believes that negotiating with  
Iran is unlikely to produce any positive results, a position  
reflective of a high level of officially expressed skepticism in the  
new administration. She has also said the proposed missile shield in  
Eastern Europe is intended to defend against Iran, even though Tehran  
has neither long-range offensive missiles nor warheads, while Chairman  
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen has stated that Iran  
already has the fuel to make a nuclear weapon. New CIA Director Leon  
Panetta has said that Tehran is intent on building a bomb, and  
President Obama is also on board, indicating his belief that Tehran is  
moving to acquire nuclear arms. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates  
strikes a somewhat more cautious note, commenting that Iran is still  
far away from having an atomic bomb, a view supported by intelligence  
analysts at the CIA, who report that there is absolutely no evidence  
that Iran has a nuclear weapons program.


The views of Clinton, Panetta, and Obama should not be surprising,  
because they are making a political judgment based on their own  
assessment of Tehran's intentions, which is admittedly a tricky  
business and highly speculative. For them, Iran is a potential threat  
that has been demonized for years in the United States, and no one has  
ever lost votes by attacking the mullahs. Quite the contrary. To give  
Obama his due, he probably would like to see talks with Iran succeed,  
but he is assuming the worst and hedging his bets. He wants to have  
the powerful Israeli lobby on his side whichever way he turns.  
Clinton's unwillingness to negotiate is somewhat simpler. She is a  
faithful disciple of the Israeli lobby who does her annual pilgrimage  
to the AIPAC convention and says all the right things. She will not do  
anything that looks like accommodating the Iranians.


And then there is the baleful presence of Dennis Ross, now busily  
furnishing his grand new office on the seventh floor of the State  
Department. Thomas Friedman in the New York Times hails Ross as a  
"super sub-secretary," part of a "diplomatic A-team" that will  
coordinate policy to put pressure on Iran to end its weapons program.  
Friedman, who has been wrong in his assessments more times than Bill  
Kristol, is clearly pleased at what Ross represents. Ross had his move  
to State announced somewhat prematurely by his colleagues at the AIPAC- 
affiliated Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP), and  
opposition to him almost derailed the appointment.

In addition to WINEP, he has recently been on the Israeli government  
payroll, serving as chairman of the Jewish People Policy Planning  
Institute. One assumes that he has severed that particular connection,  
but he is nevertheless a terrible choice for any senior diplomatic  
post dealing with Iran. His appointment is a sign that AIPAC had to be  
appeased by the new administration. Because of Ross' considerable  
baggage, his new position was announced quietly through a press  
release, naming him as a special adviser for the Gulf and Southwest  
Asia. He is another Clinton-era legacy that America can do without,  
having served recently on a bipartisan commission advocating talking  
with Iran as a prelude to bombing it. He has powerful supporters in  
Congress and the Israel lobby who will undoubtedly seek to leverage  
his position to make him the point man for confronting the Iranians.


So there you have it. Iran is not going to go away, and campaign  
promises are easily forgotten as the Obama players line up to continue  
the Bush policy. Tehran will be cited as the agent provocateur if  
things go south in Afghanistan, as is all too likely. If there is one  
truth about Washington, it is that both Republicans and Democrats  
alike need someone to blame when things go wrong. If there were no  
scapegoat, they would have to blame themselves, and we can't have  
that, can we?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20090310/e30aceeb/attachment-0001.html