[Peace-discuss] The Lobby strikes, again.

[Brussel Morton K.]

On Mar 11, 2009, at 2:23 PM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:

> 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.)

Obama appointed him!
>
>
> 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.

"Force" is a funny word; I would use "influence".  This argument begs  
(awkward phrasing) the question of often determining influence.
>
>
> "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.

Which show that he can pick and choose his examples. This too begs the  
question.
>
>
> 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.  --

Yes, the LOBBY is not always successful, only too often successful in  
steering U.S. policy.
--mkb

>
>
> 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?

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20090311/b298ae4a/attachment.html