[Peace-discuss] The Lobby strikes, again.

[Brussel Morton K.]

"But he didn't do it."
And why didn't he??  --mkb

On Mar 10, 2009, at 11:01 PM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:

> 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