[Peace-discuss] The Lobby strikes, again.

[C. G. Estabrook]

Not because The Lobby would somehow take reprisals against him, but because
Freeman's views included a critique of the US war policy in the Middle East,
which Obama has fervently embraced. (indeed, he always had, even when he 
pretended not to.)

Of the Israeli government and the USG, which can force the other to do what it
doesn't want to do?  The USG wins hands down.

"The debates over the influence of the lobby have to do with sorting out 
influences that mostly converge. The test is when U.S. government policies and 
the lobby conflict, as often happens. In that case, invariably, the lobby 
disappears, knowing better than to confront real power. That happened last 
summer, once again, in an important case: the lobby was intent on ramming 
through Congress a resolution calling for a virtual blockade of Iran, a very 
high priority for Israel. At first they rounded up Congressional support, enough 
to pass it, until the White House hinted quietly that it was opposed, not 
wanting to be dragged into a war with Iran. The measure (HR 362) was dropped; 
the lobby was silent -- not uncommonly."

Similarly, "the Kyl-Lieberman amendment of September 2007, which all but 
declared war on Tehran," referred to in the piece below, had its teeth pulled 
before it passed -- notably by the removal of the passage that stated that "it 
should be the policy of the United States to combat, contain, and roll back the 
violent activities and destabilizing influence inside Iraq of the Government of 
the Islamic Republic of Iran, its foreign facilitators such as Lebanese 
Hezbollah, and its indigenous Iraqi proxies."  Also removed was a provision "to 
support the prudent and calibrated use of all instruments of United States 
national power in Iraq, including diplomatic, economic, intelligence, and 
military instruments" in support of the above.

The USG was setting Iran policy, not the Lobby. One of the last acts of the Bush 
administration was to publicize the information that it had scotched any 
suggestion of an Israeli attack on Iran.  --CGE


Brussel Morton K. wrote:
> "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?