[Peace-discuss] The Lobby strikes, again.

[C. G. Estabrook]

No, DNI Blair appointed him.  It's a continuation of the internal fight between
Neocons and Realists within the Permanent Government that differentiated
Bush-2's two administrations.  The only surprise, such as it is, is that
Obama-1.0 is looking if anything more (neo)conservative than Bush-2.2.  Of
course the Realists are more belligerent in AfPak than the neocons were.

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

"Begs the question" means "assumes what one sets out to prove."  I was instead 
offering examples of the dominance of the interests of the USG over those of the 
Israeli government on those few occasions when they differ.


Brussel Morton K. wrote:
> 
> 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?
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list 
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net 
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss