Joined: 06 Jan 2003
|Posted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 7:38 pm Post subject: Jewish JINSA/PNAC Neocons Want Iran to be Bombed Next
|The Washington Times
No cakewalk in the park?
By Arnaud de Borchgrave
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Published November 13, 2006
"Ripley's Believe It Or Not" began in 1918 as a comic strip featuring unusual, hard-to-believe facts from around the world. Today it is a Web site for a global community that combs cyberspace for events so strange and unusual it is often hard to believe they are taking place. These days, you don't have to go further afield than Washington , D.C.
The neo-conservatives (neocons) who gave us the "cakewalk" prediction for Iraq before the war are now plugging "a walk in the park" in Iran -- i.e., a U.S. bombing campaign to consign the mullahs' nuclear ambitions to oblivion, or at least to retard the advent of an Iranian bomb for a few years, hoping that in the interim good democrats would rise up and send the clerics and their Revolutionary Guards packing.
Two Washington-based representatives of a global Fortune 100 company told their visiting senior executive this week a bombing campaign of Iran 's nuclear facilities "is inevitable while Mr. Bush is in the White House." The incredulous CEO thought his Washington eyes and ears were overstating the case. They assured him they were deadly serious.
Leading neocon Richard Perle, who led the intellectual charge for the ill-fated invasion of Iraq , believes two B-2 bombers, each with 16 independently targeted weapons systems, could punch out Iran 's nuclear lights. No Air Force expert we could find agreed. But the Pentagon's Air Force generals believe it can be done -- and successfully -- with a much larger operation, including five nights of bombing, some 400 aim points, 75 requiring deep penetration ordnance. Time magazine estimates 1,500 such aim points, or "viable targets," related to Iran 's widely scattered nuclear development complex. The Navy, with its carrier task forces and ship-launched cruise missiles, does not share the same degree of certainty.
No one has worked more assiduously for military action than Michael Ledeen, a neocon field marshal, who writes frequently about the "horrors" of Iran 's mullahocracy. His National Review Online commentary Nov. 1 was headlined "Delay." Mr. Ledeen has grown impatient over Mr. Bush's dangerous postponement of what he considers inevitable. "If the president knows Iran is waging war on us," wrote Mr. Ledeen, "he is obliged to respond; the only appropriate question is about the method, not the substance. If he does not know, then he should remove those officials who were obliged to tell him, and get some people who will tell the truth."
The truth has become an increasingly rare commodity in Washington . Mr. Ledeen concludes the president knows the truth, but thinks he may lack the political capital to directly challenge the mullahs. More likely, Mr. Bush's thinking has changed when confronted by the intelligence community's assessment of Iran 's retaliatory capabilities. They are described as "formidable." These include mining the Strait of Hormuz , the channel for two-fifths of the world's oil traffic, which would send oil prices skyrocketing to $200 per barrel almost overnight.
Prince Turki al-Faisal, Saudi Arabia 's ambassador to the U.S. , headed his country's intelligence service for 25 years. He warns that an attack against Iran would turn "the whole Persian Gulf into an inferno of exploding fuel tanks and shot-up facilities." Earlier this month, Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards test-fired dozens of missiles, including the long-range Shahab-3 (1,242 miles), Shahab-2 (cluster warhead of 1,400 bomblets), solid-fuel Zalzals, Zolfaghar73, Z-3, and SCUD-Bs, all timed to follow by two days the completion of U.S.-led allied naval maneuvers in the Gulf that Tehran described as "adventurist." Warships from Australia , Britain , France , Italy , Bahrain and the U.S. participated.
Dubbed "Great Prophet," Iran 's 10-day war games were designed "to show our deterrent and defensive power to trans-regional enemies, and we hope they will understand the message," said Revolutionary Guard commander Gen. Yahya Rahim Safavi.
Iran also has control over Hezbollah whose terrorist arm has already reached all the way to Argentina (in the mid-1990s) and whose sleeper cells, from Saudi Arabia's eastern oil fields where Shi'ites are the majority, to North America, are still feigning sleep.
Russia and China have made clear they will not be part of any tough sanction regime against Iran . They both have strong commercial ties to Iran . Tehran is paying Russia $700 million for 29 air defense missile systems. China signed a 10-year, $100 billion oil deal with Iran .
What the neocons dismiss as the "nervous nellies" of the intelligence community may have slipped in to President Bush's morning brief a subversive quote or two from conservative historian Paul Johnson, e.g., "Statesmen should never plunge into the future ... without first examining what guidance the past could supply?"
Mr. Ledeen, who acts as spokesman for Iran 's suppressed democratic forces, says, "The first step is to embrace the unpleasant fact that we are at war with Iran , and it is long past time to respond." The Iraqi debacle, along with the fading image of the U.S. as the world's sole superpower, as well as of Israel as the regional superpower, evidently persuaded President Bush to further disappoint the neocons. The Iraq Study Group's (ISG) James A. Baker III and Lee H. Hamilton wanted neocon idol Donald Rumsfeld replaced as defense secretary before going public with their findings.
The new defense secretary, former CIA Director Robert M. Gates, a close friend of Mr. Baker, and also a member of ISG, has long favored direct talks with "Axis of Evil" charter member Iran . Mr. Baker, Mr. Hamilton and Mr. Gates are now on the same wavelength. They believe bombing Iran would be an unmitigated disaster for U.S. interests the world over. The alternative is to explore a geopolitical deal with a country that has legitimate security interests.
The neocons' ideas for a walk in the Iranian park are still very much alive in Israel , whose very existence has been threatened by the mullahocracy. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert will make clear to Mr. Bush today during a White House visit that Israel is not prepared to live with an Iranian nuclear weapon.
Arnaud de Borchgrave is editor at large of The Washington Times and of United Press International.
Bush administration would be open to bombing North Korea and Iran
In Iran, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said today his government is nearing the “final step” in developing its nuclear program. Ahmadinejad did not provide details. He’s already announced Iran will celebrate its “right to nuclear technology” by the end of the Iranian year in March. His comments come two days after an unidentified senior US official told the Reuters news agency the Bush administration would be open to bombing North Korea and Iran. The official said: "We, the United States, and others who might be threatened by these developments will have to look at how to respond and inevitably I think people will have to look at the question of pre-emption."
Bush doesn't fear attack on Iran: Israeli envoy
Wed Nov 15, 3:44 AM ET
President Bush will not hesitate to use military force against Iran if other options fail, Israel's outgoing ambassador to the United States said in an interview published on Wednesday.
"I know President Bush well ... From his standpoint, a nuclear Iran, ayatollahs with a bomb, is unacceptable," Danny Ayalon told Israel's Ma'ariv newspaper.
"I have been privileged to know him well, he will not hesitate to go all the way if there is no choice."
Concern over Iran's atomic ambitions figured prominently in talks in Washington this week between Bush and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert.
The U.S. and allies including Israel have accused Iran of pursuing nuclear weapons under the guise of a civilian energy program. Iran denies the accusation.
Ayalon, who has spent the past 4-1/2 years in Washington, said Bush would continue to pursue diplomatic efforts for now, and failing that would chose to try to isolate Iran via sanctions.
But if that tactic also failed to stem Iran's nuclear plans, Ayalon said Bush would likely use air power combined with limited ground forces to attack Iran.
"Anyone who knows President Bush knows that he is very determined. He is convinced of the moral supremacy of democracies over dictatorships ... If the sanctions succeed, all the better. Otherwise, he will act by all means possible, including military action," he said.
In public, Bush has said he backs a diplomatic solution with Iran but has refused to rule out a military strike.
The Islamic republic has said it is willing to talk to the U.S., but that Washington must first "change its attitude."
Asked if the United States would be capable of taking military action against Iran, given that it is already engaged in a debilitating conflict in Iraq, Ayalon said:
"This is not an operation on the same scale. There is no intention of employing large ground forces. That is not the model. This is more a case of employing air power combined with limited ground forces."
The Highjacking of a Nation
By SIBEL EDMONDS
In his farewell address in 1796, George Washington warned that America must be constantly awake against "the insidious wiles of foreign influence since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government."
And in 2006?
THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 16, 2006
9:25 MECCA TIME, 6:25 GMT
Olmert and Bush met in Washington
Ehud Olmert, the Israeli prime minister, says he has been reassured of US support for Israeli interests following discussions with president Bush following the Democrat's victory in midterm elections.
Olmert also stressed his support for US-led efforts to impose sanctions on Iran over its nuclear programme.
He said: "Every compromise that will stop Iran from acquiring nuclear capabilties which will be acceptable to president Bush will be acceptable to me."
After their meeting, Bush said: "If Iran has a nuclear weapon, it will be incredibly destabilising and obviously threatening a stong ally."
Olmert's visit to Washington gave Bush a chance to redirect his attention to foreign policy after his Republican party's losses in congressional elections.
There has been speculation in the US that Bush, weakened by the election results and setbacks in Iraq, might try to complete his term in office with progress on the Israeli-Palestinian issue.
Olmert has appeared confident that there will be no change in the relationship between the US and Israel.
Olmert told reporters on the flight to Washington: "Support for Israel traditionally has been bipartisan. I don't see anything changing in the next two years that can alter the balance of feeling toward us."
The US and Israel accuse Iran of developing its uraniam enrichment programme in order to acquire nuclear weapons, although Iran says it intends to use the programme purely for electricity generation.
Before his return to Tel Aviv, Olmert had previously told reporters: "If someone wants to reach a compromise with Iran, he must understand that Iran won't be ready to do so unless it is afraid.
"Israel has various options which I am not prepared to discuss."
Iran warned on Sunday that its Revolutionary Guards would respond swiftly if Israel attacked it.
Mohammad Ali Hosseini, an Iranian foreign ministry spokesman, said: "If Israel takes such a stupid step and attacks, the answer of Iran and its Revolutionary Guard will be rapid, firm and destructive and it will be given in a few seconds."
Olmert said in an interview broadcast on Israeli television on Monday: "I am not looking for wars. I am not looking for confrontations. I'm looking for the outcome.
"This campaign will be tested in only one way - whether it will succeed to stop Iran from possessing nuclear weapons."
Speaking at the Simon Wiesenthal Tolerance museum in Los Angeles shortly before his departure on Wednesday, Olmert said: "We will do what needs to be done [to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons].
"I am happy to say after meeting president Bush that he shows the same attitude, the same conviction and the same commitment."
Iran: The Next War (for Israel):
Israel's influence of US policy & the Israeli lobby:
AIPAC and the Neocon (War for Israel) agenda:
Jewish 'American' AIPAC diplomat handling Iraq after Iran and Syria for Israel:
This Jewish 'American' diplomat (David Satterrfield) with the US State Department is currently sitting with General John Abizaid in a Senate hearing on Iraq (Satterfield is a rabid Israel firster and is even associated with the ongoing AIPAC spying for Israel espionage case, and the US pro-Israel biased US press/media isn't even covering such either):
Prominent Mideast analyst associated with AIPAC espionage:
How can one say that the Iraq war isn't for Israel when you have this Satterfield handling the diplomatic situation in Iraq. In addition, he has helped to cover up Israel's treacherous attack on the USS Liberty as well (can see him open the State Department panel on the USS Liberty panel via the 'Six Day War'/USS Liberty' link near the bottom of http://www.irmep.org and can read more about the USS Liberty attack via http://www.ussliberty.org as John 'Israel first' McCain has helped to perpetuate the USS Liberty cover-up for many years as well):
By: ISRAELFIRSTERTRAITORS on November 15, 2006 at 12:40pm
Satterfield wasjust warhawking against Syria and Iran (in accordance with the 'A Clean Break/war for Israel agenda that Bamford discribes via the following URL):
'A Clean Break'/war for Israel agenda from James Bamford's 'A Pretext for War' book:
Video that gets to the Israel question:
Additional at following URL:
PRO-ISRAEL LOBBY IN US UNDER ATTACK:
WASHINGTON, March 20 (UPI) -- Two of America's top scholars have published a searing attack on the role and power of Washington's pro-Israel lobby in a British journal, warning that its "decisive" role in fomenting the Iraq war is now being repeated with the threat of action against Iran. And they say that the Lobby is so strong that they doubt their article would be accepted in any U.S.-based publication.
Professor John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago, author of "The Tragedy of Great Power Politics" and Professor Stephen Walt of Harvard's Kenney School, and author of "Taming American Power: The Global Response to U.S. Primacy," are leading figures American in academic life.
They claim that the Israel lobby has distorted American policy and operates against American interests, that it has organized the funneling of more than $140 billion dollars to Israel and "has a stranglehold" on the U.S. Congress, and its ability to raise large campaign funds gives its vast influence over Republican and Democratic administrations, while its role in Washington think tanks on the Middle East dominates the policy debate.
And they say that the Lobby works ruthlessly to suppress questioning of its role, to blacken its critics and to crush serious debate about the wisdom of supporting Israel in U.S. public life.
"Silencing skeptics by organizing blacklists and boycotts -- or by suggesting that critics are anti-Semites -- violates the principle of open debate on which democracy depends," Walt and Mearsheimer write.
"The inability of Congress to conduct a genuine debate on these important issues paralyses the entire process of democratic deliberation. Israel's backers should be free to make their case and to challenge those who disagree with them, but efforts to stifle debate by intimidation must be roundly condemned," they add, in the 12,800-word article published in the latest issue of The London Review of Books.
The article focuses strongly on the role of the "neo-conservatives" within the Bush administration in driving the decision to launch the war on Iraq.
"The main driving force behind the war was a small band of neo-conservatives, many with ties to the Likud," Mearsheimer and Walt argue." Given the neo-conservatives' devotion to Israel, their obsession with Iraq, and their influence in the Bush administration, it isn't surprising that many Americans suspected that the war was designed to further Israeli interests."
"The neo-conservatives had been determined to topple Saddam even before Bush became president. They caused a stir early in 1998 by publishing two open letters to Clinton, calling for Saddam's removal from power. The signatories, many of whom had close ties to pro-Israel groups like JINSA (Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs) or WINEP (Washington Institute for Near Eastern Policy), and who included Elliot Abrams, John Bolton, Douglas Feith, William Kristol, Bernard Lewis, Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz, had little trouble persuading the Clinton administration to adopt the general goal of ousting Saddam. But they were unable to sell a war to achieve that objective. They were no more able to generate enthusiasm for invading Iraq in the early months of the Bush administration. They needed help to achieve their aim. That help arrived with 9/11. Specifically, the events of that day led Bush and Cheney to reverse course and become strong proponents of a preventive war," Walt and Mearsheimer write.
The article, which is already stirring furious debate in U.S. academic and intellectual circles, also explores the historical role of the Lobby.
"For the past several decades, and especially since the Six-Day War in 1967, the centerpiece of US Middle Eastern policy has been its relationship with Israel," the article says.
"The combination of unwavering support for Israel and the related effort to spread 'democracy' throughout the region has inflamed Arab and Islamic opinion and jeopardized not only U.S. security but that of much of the rest of the world. This situation has no equal in American political history. Why has the U.S. been willing to set aside its own security and that of many of its allies in order to advance the interests of another state?" Professors Walt and Mearsheimer add.
"The thrust of U.S. policy in the region derives almost entirely from domestic politics, and especially the activities of the 'Israel Lobby'. Other special-interest groups have managed to skew foreign policy, but no lobby has managed to divert it as far from what the national interest would suggest, while simultaneously convincing Americans that U.S. interests and those of the other country - in this case, Israel -- are essentially identical," they add.
They argue that far from being a strategic asset to the United States, Israel "is becoming a strategic burden" and "does not behave like a loyal ally." They also suggest that Israel is also now "a liability in the war on terror and the broader effort to deal with rogue states.
"Saying that Israel and the U.S. are united by a shared terrorist threat has the causal relationship backwards: the US has a terrorism problem in good part because it is so closely allied with Israel, not the other way around," they add. "Support for Israel is not the only source of anti-American terrorism, but it is an important one, and it makes winning the war on terror more difficult. There is no question that many al-Qaida leaders, including Osama bin Laden, are motivated by Israel's presence in Jerusalem and the plight of the Palestinians. Unconditional support for Israel makes it easier for extremists to rally popular support and to attract recruits."
They question the argument that Israel deserves support as the only democracy in the Middle East, claiming that "some aspects of Israeli democracy are at odds with core American values. Unlike the US, where people are supposed to enjoy equal rights irrespective of race, religion or ethnicity, Israel was explicitly founded as a Jewish state and citizenship is based on the principle of blood kinship. Given this, it is not surprising that its 1.3 million Arabs are treated as second-class citizens."
The most powerful force in the Lobby is AIPAC, the American-Israel Public affairs Committee, which Walt and Mearsheimer call "a de facto agent for a foreign government," and which they say has now forged an important alliance with evangelical Christian groups.
The bulk of the article is a detailed analysis of the way they claim the Lobby managed to change the Bush administration's policy from "halting Israel's expansionist policies in the Occupied Territories and advocating the creation of a Palestinian state" and divert it to the war on Iraq instead. They write "Pressure from Israel and the Lobby was not the only factor behind the decision to attack Iraq in March 2003, but it was critical."
"Thanks to the lobby, the United States has become the de facto enabler of Israeli expansion in the Occupied Territories, making it complicit in the crimes perpetrated against the Palestinians," and conclude that "Israel itself would probably be better off if the Lobby were less powerful and U.S. policy more even-handed."
Mearsheimer replies to the irate "Israel Lobby"
Letters - The Israel Lobby - From John Mearsheimer & Stephen Walt.
We wrote 'The Israel Lobby' in order to begin a discussion of a subject that had become difficult to address openly in the United States (LRB, 23 March). We knew it was likely to generate a strong reaction, and we are not surprised that some of our critics have chosen to attack our characters or misrepresent our arguments. .... Must Read !!!
Additional at following URL:
Read "Iran will be much easier to democratize, neocon group promises":
Colin Powell believes that JINSA Neocons have hijacked the Pentagon:
Thinking about Neoconservatism:
Neoconservatism as a Jewish Movement:
Additional at following URL:
See Last few Paragraphs...a simple reassurance from his friend in Washington the people's decisions have no negative impact on israel and the plan is still on to attack Iranian nuke facilities.
Every compromise that will stop Iran from acquiring nuclear capability which would be acceptable to President Bush will be acceptable to me.
Really? We are that close eh?
Bush Calls for Global Isolation of Iran
By BARRY SCHWEID, AP Diplomatic Writer
Monday, November 13, 2006 10 08 AM
(11-13) 10:08 PST WASHINGTON, (AP) --
President Bush, responding to concerns Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert brought to the White House, called on Monday for worldwide isolation of Iran until it "gives up its nuclear ambitions."
The risk to the world extends beyond Israel and the Middle East, Bush said in Oval Office remarks to reporters after meeting with Olmert for an hour. The United States and Israel say they believe Iran is working on nuclear weapons, although Tehran says its work on the technology is aimed only at producing energy.
"Iran's nuclear ambitions are not in the world's interest," Bush said. "If Iran had nuclear weapons it would be terribly destabilizing."
His prescription for dealing with Iran was diplomatic, having the United Nations impose sanctions to force Iran to stop uranium enrichment. Diplomats at the U.N. have been bogged down for weeks trying to agree to a resolution that would place some sanctions on Iran for refusing to halt its enrichment.
"If they continue to move forward with the program, there has to be a consequence," Bush said. "And a good place to start is working together to isolate the country. And my hope is, is that there are rational people inside the government that recognize isolation is not in their country's interest."
Bush said if the Iranians want to have a dialogue, "We have shown them a way forward," referring to the U.S.-European demand that Iran halt enrichment.
Olmert said his government in principle was willing to negotiate with Syria. But Syria's sponsorship of Hamas, the militant group that has attacked Israel and dominates the Palestinian government, and its activities in Lebanon, prevent talking to Damascus right now, Olmert said.
Bush, also not ruling out U.S. talks with Syria, said Syria has to "get out of Lebanon."
In focusing on his concerns with Iran, Olmert offered assurances he was not looking for a confrontation with Iran.
"I am not looking for wars," he declared in advance of his meeting with Bush.
"This is not an issue of Israel only," Olmert said of Iran's nuclear efforts. "This is a moral issue of the whole world."
The meeting was the second Olmert had with Bush since the prime minister took over for the ailing Ariel Sharon. Palestinian gestures toward peacemaking with Israel was also a key topic on their agenda.
Tehran's goal is to "ultimately wipe Israel off the map," Olmert said on NBC's "Today" show. "The whole world has to join forces in order to stop it. This is a problem of every country. I know that President Bush is fully aware of that."
Iranian officials say their goal is to create nuclear energy.
Olmert also arrived with expectations that he could make small-scale moves on the Palestinian front, including the possibility of offering humanitarian aid to the Palestinian people.
On Sunday, the Palestinian foreign minister, Mahmoud Zahar, of the ruling Hamas group, accepted an Arab proposal for a peace conference with Israel, diplomats said. The endorsement marks the first time Hamas, which refuses to renounce violence against the Jewish state, has indicated it would consider making amends with Israel.
The White House reacted positively to what it called "some activity on the Hamas side."
"Both sides are working on it, and we are encouraged," spokesman Tony Snow said.
He told reporters that when it comes to peacemaking, however, "nobody ever said it was simple, without bumps."
Olmert had dinner Sunday evening with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. There was no immediate comment from the Israeli government or the U.S. State Department on the meeting.
Israel is worried by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's repeated calls to destroy Israel and — like the United States — does not believe Tehran's claims that its nuclear program is intended solely to produce energy. Israel accuses Iran of developing nuclear weapons, a charge Tehran denies.
Olmert said in the NBC interview that he had no objection to the U.S. negotiating with Iran on the nuclear issue to achieve a peaceful compromise. "Every compromise that will stop Iran from acquiring nuclear capability which would be acceptable to President Bush will be acceptable to me. I'm not looking for wars. I'm not looking for confrontations. I'm looking for the outcome."
While the U.S. has led international efforts to curb the Iranian nuclear program, Israelis are worried American policy might soften following the Democratic Party's victory in U.S. congressional elections last week.
The fear is that with American public opinion turning against the U.S. invasion of Iraq, Bush, a Republican, would be less likely to take decisive military or diplomatic action against Iran.
Jefferson Davis responds:
How about Israel proclaiming that they will give up their nuclear weapons in exchange for the Iranians etc. for a "Nuclear Free Holy Lands".
Hell would freeze first.
Israel introduced nukes into the ME, only a fool would have thought or believed that some reciprocation would eventually follow.
Stop whining...and reap what you sow. Leave the US out of your batshiat Zionist plans and supremacy.
Why Israel will go to war again – soon:
US Support of Israel PRIMARY MOTIVATION for the tragic attacks on the World Trade Center in 1993 and on 9/11:
Bamford discusses 'A Clean Break'/war for Israel agenda on MSNBC's 'Countdown with Keith Olbermann':
The following article is right in accordance with the 'A Clean Break' agenda as 'A Clean Break' was written for Netanyahu who is apparently going to replace Olmert:
Honor First?; the liberation of Lebanon :
The Lobby and the Israeli Invasion of Lebanon:
Their Facts and Ours
by James Petras
August 29, 2006
Israel's attack on Lebanon resulted in 9/11:
AIPAC, JINSA and similar have prevented Israel's treacherous attack on the USS Liberty from ever being investigated fully (with the survivors testifying before Congress) because traitorous AIPAC hacks like John McCain have helped to keep the USS Liberty cover-up perpetuated in service of a foreign government:
Israel's always get what they want (to include the coming attack on Iran):
Last edited by Alpha on Thu Nov 16, 2006 8:15 pm; edited 17 times in total
Joined: 06 Jan 2003
|Posted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 8:23 pm Post subject:
How Neoconservatives Conquered Washington – and Launched a War
by Michael Lind
April 10, 2003
America's allies and enemies alike are baffled. What is going on in the United States? Who is making foreign policy? And what are they trying to achieve? Quasi-Marxist explanations involving big oil or American capitalism are mistaken. Yes, American oil companies and contractors will accept the spoils of the kill in Iraq. But the oil business, with its Arabist bias, did not push for this war any more than it supports the Bush administration's close alliance with Ariel Sharon. Further, President Bush and Vice President Cheney are not genuine "Texas oil men" but career politicians who, in between stints in public life, would have used their connections to enrich themselves as figureheads in the wheat business, if they had been residents of Kansas, or in tech companies, had they been Californians.
Equally wrong is the theory that the American and European civilizations are evolving in opposite directions. The thesis of Robert Kagan, the neoconservative propagandist, that Americans are martial and Europeans pacifist, is complete nonsense. A majority of Americans voted for either Al Gore or Ralph Nader in 2000. Were it not for the overrepresentation of sparsely populated, right-wing states in both the presidential electoral college and the Senate, the White House and the Senate today would be controlled by Democrats, whose views and values, on everything from war to the welfare state, are very close to those of western Europeans.
Both the economic-determinist theory and the clash-of-cultures theory are reassuring: They assume that the recent revolution in U.S. foreign policy is the result of obscure but understandable forces in an orderly world. The truth is more alarming. As a result of several bizarre and unforeseeable contingencies – such as the selection rather than election of George W. Bush, and Sept. 11 – the foreign policy of the world's only global power is being made by a small clique that is unrepresentative of either the U.S. population or the mainstream foreign policy establishment.
The core group now in charge consists of neoconservative defense intellectuals. (They are called "neoconservatives" because many of them started off as anti-Stalinist leftists or liberals before moving to the far right.) Inside the government, the chief defense intellectuals include Paul Wolfowitz, the deputy secretary of defense. He is the defense mastermind of the Bush administration; Donald Rumsfeld is an elderly figurehead who holds the position of defense secretary only because Wolfowitz himself is too controversial. Others include Douglas Feith, No. 3 at the Pentagon; Lewis "Scooter" Libby, a Wolfowitz protégé who is Cheney's chief of staff; John R. Bolton, a right-winger assigned to the State Department to keep Colin Powell in check; and Elliott Abrams, recently appointed to head Middle East policy at the National Security Council. On the outside are James Woolsey, the former CIA director, who has tried repeatedly to link both 9/11 and the anthrax letters in the U.S. to Saddam Hussein, and Richard Perle, who has just resigned his unpaid chairmanship of a defense department advisory body after a lobbying scandal. Most of these "experts" never served in the military. But their headquarters is now the civilian defense secretary's office, where these Republican political appointees are despised and distrusted by the largely Republican career soldiers.
Most neoconservative defense intellectuals have their roots on the left, not the right. They are products of the influential Jewish-American sector of the Trotskyist movement of the 1930s and 1940s, which morphed into anti-communist liberalism between the 1950s and 1970s and finally into a kind of militaristic and imperial right with no precedents in American culture or political history. Their admiration for the Israeli Likud party's tactics, including preventive warfare such as Israel's 1981 raid on Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor, is mixed with odd bursts of ideological enthusiasm for "democracy." They call their revolutionary ideology "Wilsonianism" (after President Woodrow Wilson), but it is really Trotsky's theory of the permanent revolution mingled with the far-right Likud strain of Zionism. Genuine American Wilsonians believe in self-determination for people such as the Palestinians.
The neocon defense intellectuals, as well as being in or around the actual Pentagon, are at the center of a metaphorical "pentagon" of the Israel lobby and the religious right, plus conservative think tanks, foundations and media empires. Think tanks such as the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) provide homes for neocon "in-and-outers" when they are out of government (Perle is a fellow at AEI). The money comes not so much from corporations as from decades-old conservative foundations, such as the Bradley and Olin foundations, which spend down the estates of long-dead tycoons. Neoconservative foreign policy does not reflect business interests in any direct way. The neocons are ideologues, not opportunists.
The major link between the conservative think tanks and the Israel lobby is the Washington-based and Likud-supporting Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (Jinsa), which co-opts many non-Jewish defense experts by sending them on trips to Israel. It flew out the retired general Jay Garner, now slated by Bush to be proconsul of occupied Iraq. In October 2000, he cosigned a Jinsa letter that began: "We ... believe that during the current upheavals in Israel, the Israel Defense Forces have exercised remarkable restraint in the face of lethal violence orchestrated by the leadership of [the] Palestinian Authority."
The Israel lobby itself is divided into Jewish and Christian wings. Wolfowitz and Feith have close ties to the Jewish-American Israel lobby. Wolfowitz, who has relatives in Israel, has served as the Bush administration's liaison to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. Feith was given an award by the Zionist Organization of America, citing him as a "pro-Israel activist." While out of power in the Clinton years, Feith collaborated with Perle to coauthor a policy paper for Likud that advised the Israeli government to end the Oslo peace process, reoccupy the territories, and crush Yasser Arafat's government.
Such experts are not typical of Jewish-Americans, who mostly voted for Gore in 2000. The most fervent supporters of Likud in the Republican electorate are Southern Protestant fundamentalists. The religious right believes that God gave all of Palestine to the Jews, and fundamentalist congregations spend millions to subsidize Jewish settlements in the occupied territories.
The final corner of the neoconservative pentagon is occupied by several right-wing media empires, with roots – odd as it seems – in the British Commonwealth and South Korea. Rupert Murdoch disseminates propaganda through his Fox television network. His magazine, the Weekly Standard – edited by William Kristol, the former chief of staff of Dan Quayle (vice president, 1989-1993) – acts as a mouthpiece for defense intellectuals such as Perle, Wolfowitz, Feith and Woolsey as well as for Sharon's government. The National Interest (of which I was executive editor, 1991-1994) is now funded by Conrad Black, who owns the Jerusalem Post and the Hollinger empire in Britain and Canada.
Strangest of all is the media network centered on the Washington Times – owned by the South Korean messiah (and ex-convict) the Rev. Sun Myung Moon – which owns the newswire UPI. UPI is now run by John O'Sullivan, the ghostwriter for Margaret Thatcher who once worked as an editor for Conrad Black in Canada. Through such channels, the "gotcha!" style of right-wing British journalism, and its Europhobic substance, have contaminated the US conservative movement.
The corners of the neoconservative pentagon were linked together in the 1990s by the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), run by Kristol out of the Weekly Standard offices. Using a P.R. technique pioneered by their Trotskyist predecessors, the neocons published a series of public letters whose signatories often included Wolfowitz and other future members of the Bush foreign policy team. They called for the U.S. to invade and occupy Iraq and to support Israel's campaigns against the Palestinians (dire warnings about China were another favorite). During Clinton's two terms, these fulminations were ignored by the foreign policy establishment and the mainstream media. Now they are frantically being studied.
How did the neocon defense intellectuals – a small group at odds with most of the U.S. foreign policy elite, Republican as well as Democratic – manage to capture the Bush administration? Few supported Bush during the presidential primaries. They feared that the second Bush would be like the first – a wimp who had failed to occupy Baghdad in the first Gulf War and who had pressured Israel into the Oslo peace process – and that his administration, again like his father's, would be dominated by moderate Republican realists such as Powell, James Baker and Brent Scowcroft. They supported the maverick senator John McCain until it became clear that Bush would get the nomination.
Then they had a stroke of luck – Cheney was put in charge of the presidential transition (the period between the election in November and the accession to office in January). Cheney used this opportunity to stack the administration with his hard-line allies. Instead of becoming the de facto president in foreign policy, as many had expected, Secretary of State Powell found himself boxed in by Cheney's right-wing network, including Wolfowitz, Perle, Feith, Bolton and Libby.
The neocons took advantage of Bush's ignorance and inexperience. Unlike his father, a Second World War veteran who had been ambassador to China, director of the CIA, and vice president, George W was a thinly educated playboy who had failed repeatedly in business before becoming the governor of Texas, a largely ceremonial position (the state's lieutenant governor has more power). His father is essentially a northeastern moderate Republican; George W, raised in west Texas, absorbed the Texan cultural combination of machismo, anti-intellectualism and overt religiosity. The son of upper-class Episcopalian parents, he converted to Southern fundamentalism in a midlife crisis. Fervent Christian Zionism, along with an admiration for macho Israeli soldiers that sometimes coexists with hostility to liberal Jewish-American intellectuals, is a feature of the Southern culture.
The younger Bush was tilting away from Powell and toward Wolfowitz ("Wolfie," as he calls him) even before 9/11 gave him something he had lacked: a mission in life other than following in his dad's footsteps. There are signs of estrangement between the cautious father and the crusading son: Last year, veterans of the first Bush administration, including Baker, Scowcroft and Lawrence Eagleburger, warned publicly against an invasion of Iraq without authorization from Congress and the U.N.
It is not clear that George W fully understands the grand strategy that Wolfowitz and other aides are unfolding. He seems genuinely to believe that there was an imminent threat to the U.S. from Saddam Hussein's "weapons of mass destruction," something the leading neocons say in public but are far too intelligent to believe themselves. The Project for the New American Century urged an invasion of Iraq throughout the Clinton years, for reasons that had nothing to do with possible links between Saddam and Osama bin Laden. Public letters signed by Wolfowitz and others called on the U.S. to invade and occupy Iraq, to bomb Hezbollah bases in Lebanon, and to threaten states such as Syria and Iran with U.S. attacks if they continued to sponsor terrorism. Claims that the purpose is not to protect the American people but to make the Middle East safe for Israel are dismissed by the neocons as vicious anti-Semitism. Yet Syria, Iran and Iraq are bitter enemies, with their weapons pointed at each other, and the terrorists they sponsor target Israel rather than the U.S. The neocons urge war with Iran next, though by any rational measurement North Korea's new nuclear arsenal is, for the U.S., a far greater problem.
So that is the bizarre story of how neoconservatives took over Washington and steered the U.S. into a Middle Eastern war unrelated to any plausible threat to the U.S. and opposed by the public of every country in the world except Israel. The frightening thing is the role of happenstance and personality. After the al-Qaida attacks, any U.S. president would likely have gone to war to topple bin Laden's Taliban protectors in Afghanistan. But everything that the U.S. has done since then would have been different had America's 18th century electoral rules not given Bush the presidency and had Cheney not used the transition period to turn the foreign policy executive into a PNAC reunion.
For a British equivalent, one would have to imagine a Tory government, with Downing Street and Whitehall controlled by followers of the Rev. Ian Paisley, extreme Euroskeptics, empire loyalists and Blimpish military types – all determined, for a variety of strategic or religious reasons, to invade Egypt. Their aim would be to regain the Suez Canal as the first step in a campaign to restore the British empire. Yes, it really is that weird.
Chalmers Johnson (author of 'Blowback' and 'The Sorrows and Empire') was recently interviewed by Ian Masters as well (see www.ianmasters.org) as the interview with Michael Lind will be added there to archive in the future:
Dr. Chalmers Johnson on the rise of a militaristic Japanese leadership, supported by American neocons, and what he views as a crisis of American democracy with the passage of the Military Commissions Act of 2006. Dr. Chalmers is an author and professor emeritus of the University of California, San Diego. He is also president and co-founder of the Japan Policy Research Institute, an organization promoting public education about Japan and Asia. He has written numerous books including, most recently, two essential examinations of the consequences of American empire, Blowback: the costs and consequences of American empire and The Sorrows of Empire: militarism, secrecy and the end of the republic. Blowback won an American Book Award in 2001, and was re-issued in an updated version in 2004. Sorrows of Empire, published in 2004, updated the evidence and argument from Blowback for the post-9/11 environment. Johnson was centrally featured in the Eugene Jarecki-directed film Why We Fight, which won the 2005 Grand Jury Prize at the Sundance Film Festival. His forthcoming book is "Nemesis: the last days of the American Republic."
March 24, 2003 issue
A neoconservative clique seeks to ensnare our country in a series of wars that are not in America’s interest.
by Patrick J. Buchanan
Joined: 06 Jan 2003
|Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 5:46 pm Post subject:
Iran Hawks Reorganize
Meet the Iran Enterprise Institute. Its name might sound familiar.
By Laura Rozen
Web Exclusive: 11.13.06
Print Friendly | Email Article
Unchastened by the catastrophe of the Iraq war or the setback delivered to the White House and Republicans in the midterm elections in part as a result of it, Iran hawks have organized new efforts to promote U.S. support for regime change in Tehran.
Among the latest efforts is the creation earlier this month of the Iran Enterprise Institute, a privately funded nonprofit drawing not just its name but inspiration and moral support from leading figures associated with the American Enterprise Institute. The Iran Enterprise Institute is directed by a newly arrived Iranian dissident whose cause has recently been championed by AEI fellow and former Pentagon advisor Richard Perle. Amir Abbas Fakhravar, 31, served time in Iran’s notorious Evin prison before arriving in Washington in May, with Perle’s help. Fakhravar, who advocates U.S. intervention to promote secular democracy in Iran, now seeks Washington’s backing to lead an organization that would unite Iranian student dissidents. (I profile Fakhravar in this month’s Mother Jones). Some other Iranian activists and journalists say Fakhravar and his supporters exaggerate his importance as a dissident leader in Iran. "Student circles and journalistic circles don’t recognize him as a student leader,” says Najmeh Bozorgmehr, the Financial Times’ Tehran correspondent who closely followed the 1999 pro-democracy Tehran student uprisings.
Incorporation papers received last week by the Washington, D.C., corporate registration office indicate that among those on the Iran Enterprise Institute's initial board of director are Fakhravar; Bijan Karimi, a professor of engineering at the University of New Haven; and Farzad Farahani, the Los Angeles-based half-brother of the U.S. leader of the exile Iranian political party, the Constitutionalist Party, which is closely tied with Fakhravar.
The Institute was created after a three-day meeting in Washington last month. According to one of the Iranians who participated in the meetings and who asked that his name not be used, among those in attendance were Fakhravar; Reza Pahlavi, son of the ousted shah of Iran; former Reagan era official and AEI scholar Michael Ledeen; a Dallas-based Iranian rug dealer who has funded anti-Tehran dissidents; and several other young Iranian oppositionists. According to sources, the group’s initial funding will come primarily from Iranian exiles. Perle’s office did not immediately respond to an inquiry to his office about the new group.
According to Iranian sources, the shah’s son, Pahlavi, announced at the meeting that the group should right then and there form a new leadership council for the Iran opposition movement, consisting mostly of the younger people present at the meeting rather than the aging cadre of monarchist supporters who have debated how to overthrow the mullahs for 25 years.
The incorporation of the Iran Enterprise Institute, which is now seeking office space in Washington, D.C., comes as the State Department is finalizing decisions on what individuals and organizations will receive some of the $75 million in U.S. government funds set aside to promote democracy in Iran. Some $50 million of that is expected to go to U.S.-government Farsi language broadcasting, and several million to U.S.-based NGOs with experience in democracy promotion. But included among the grant applications received by the State Department, according to a source, were applications by Fakhravar for three projects totaling $3 million. The State Department will not say who is receiving the grant money, in order to protect the recipients.
Even as the grant decisions are being made, U.S. government sources indicate that democracy promotion in the Middle East, including Iran, has diminshed as a foreign policy priority in the Bush administration, for a number of reasons. Chief among them is that U.S. policymakers are humbled by their experience trying to cope with the situation in Iraq. They have also been forced to turn to autocratic regimes for help in isolating Iran, as well as Hezbollah in Lebanon. “[The administration] has gotten a large dose of realism,” one U.S. official told the Prospect. “You saw [that] with the Secretary of State Rice’s last visit to the region -- the idea to create a group of like-minded states to work together on a variety of issues, to oppose Iranian subversion. Democracy and democratic reform are still there. But it’s much less salient and much less prominent.”
Laura Rozen is a Prospect senior correspondent.
Joined: 06 Jan 2003
|Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 7:01 pm Post subject:
|Gunning for Iran
Exposed : Where The U.S. gets its "intelligence" about Iran's nuclear program:
You must've heard the howls of protest from the International Atomic Energy Agency after the release of a US House of Representatives report on Iran's nuclear program. The IAEA branded the American report "outrageous and dishonest" for asserting that Tehran's nuclear plans were geared towards weapons. This, of course, was just the latest flare-up in the running debate over Iran's supposed nuclear ambitions. So where is Washington getting its information?
Try an Iranian opposition group known as the Mujahedin-e-Khalq - MeK for short. Given the debacle over Saddam's non-existent WMDs in Iraq, you'd reckon there'd have to be a touch of caution where Iranian exiles peddling nuclear secrets are concerned. But as Bronwyn Adcock tells it, when the MeK speaks, Washington hardliners listen.
Broadcast 11/04/06- Dateline - Australia - Runtime 27 Minutes
Reporter - Bronwyn Adcock
Click Play To View:
JINSA/PNAC (war for Israel) Jewish Neocon Richard Perle speaks at MEK terrorist event in D.C.:
||All times are GMT + 1 Hour
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group