[Peace-discuss] The Lobby strikes, again.

Tue Mar 10 23:01:44 CDT 2009

Amid paranoid fantasies about "the Lobby," there was nothing preventing Obama's 
saying, "I want this man in this job."  But he didn't do it.  --CGE

Brussel Morton K. wrote:
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> *T*he 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 the/Times/ 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 
> <http://www.iht.com/articles/2009/03/01/opinion/edfriedman.php>," 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?
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss