US TROOPS PREPARED TO ATTACK IRAN
William Thomas
11 May 2006 05:08 GMT
In April 2006, the US National Command Authority issued orders for more than 20,000 US soldiers to prepare to deploy to the Persian Gulf within 48 hours of receiving an execute order from either GW Bush or Donald Rumsfeld. Generals fear "Persian Gulf Incident" trigger.
US TROOPS PREPARED TO ATTACK IRAN
Bush Said To Be Seeking “Persian Gulf Incident”
by William Thomas
In January 2006, a major military base located in the western United States received voice instructions from National Command Authority (NCA) to get their logistics train underway and train up their troops for desert warfare.
The current National Command Authority is comprised of a Commander-In-Chief who deserted his post during the Vietnam War, and a Secretary of Defense who, despite never having donned a uniform in defense of his country, did succeed in cashiering and countermanding enough combat-experienced generals to engineer the current debacle in Iraq.
“Which desert?” the commander wanted to know.
“You don’t need to know,” he was told by the NCA.
With their mission unstated, infantry staff officers presumed that this redeployment of more than 10,000 combat-tested troops, as well as supporting armor, artillery and air reconnaissance would soon be heading back into Iraq—with enough force, as my source put it, to “finally go in and do it right.”
In preparation for this combat operation, all upcoming leaves between January and September 2006 were either cancelled or expedited. To insure that essential personnel would remain integrated throughout their units, military operational specialists nearing their end of duty commitments were either replaced or retained under “stop loss” provisions beyond the end of their contracts. “Hot action” would be coming soon—no later than September 2006.
As the troops began intensive training for desert combat during this 1st phase “spin up” to war, a complete inventory was taken of the bullets, beans and bodies required to initiate, sustain and complete a combat mission of unspecified duration in an as yet unspecified Theater of Operations—still assumed to be Iraq.
In February 2006, the 2nd phase of war preparations began as US personnel in Defense Data Management began tapping keypads and arranging “rides” for a still unspecified destination. Orders went out to various air, land and sealift commands to coordinate logistical support for an upcoming combat deployment to the most likely desert environment—the Persian Gulf.
All units involved had to prepare to deploy overseas on just 48-hours’ notice.
By late February 2006, military brass following mostly voice instructions from the NCA were growing uneasy. Neither inspired nor reassured by Donald Rumsfeld’s performance as an amateur armchair general, the bean counters became increasingly concerned when ordered to tally more bullets than beans. This skew in the logistics train indicated some kind of assault or invasion was in the offing, with enough ammunition available to take and hold defended ground.
A flurry of interrogatives peppering the Pentagon grew into a sustained barrage when war planners were told to prepare their own in-theater resupply depots and fueling capabilities.
Why do we need to ship fuel into Iraq, and prepare to airdrop big fuel bladders to troops on the ground, they wanted to know, when substantial ammunition and fuel depots were already secured in a country containing the world’s second biggest oil reserves.
“Shut up and do it,” the professional warriors were told by National Command Authority.
“Do what exactly?” company commanders began asking battalion HQ.
Battalion went to division, division commanders contacted their superiors…and eventually an avalanche of objections fell on the heads of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
The JCS is headed by General Richard B. Myers, the man rewarded with command over all US forces after failing to launch routine (more-than-once-weekly) intercept scrambles, or re-route fighters already airborne within easy flying distance of Manhattan and Washington DC on the morning of September 11, 2001. [AFD The Politics of Mass Persuasion; Stand Down; Day Of Deception (June 2006) – by William Thomas]
Then as now, answers were not immediately forthcoming.
By the end of February 2006, retired generals with careers no longer at risk began going more ballistic than ICBMs cooking off in their silos. According to sources inside the Pentagon and close to the JCS, their logic and comments went roughly like this:
“You’re not even telling your own troops where you’re going to deploy them. How stupid is that? If they don’t know the terrain, how can they arrange appropriate transport?
“How can medical facilities know whether to prepare for wounds by bullets, chemicals, or nuclear flash burns? Besides, all necessary material for combat operations in Iraq is already in country.”
Once again, the White House told the commanding officers involved in this unpublicized mobilization: “Shut up and do what you’re told.”
But staff officers are capable of reading newspapers, as well as orders. They started “putting two and two together” my source reported, when headline news began reporting threats from National Command Authority to invade and/or nuke Iran over its legitimate intentions to build nuclear power plants for its rapidly growing and modernizing citizenry.
This action had to be taken, the American press parroted, in order to “pre-empt” the possibility that a country already titling toward the democratic wishes of its overwhelmingly young population might seek to counter repeatedly threatened US aggression, and Israel’s 400-plus nuclear bomb arsenal with its own eventual bomb.
By April 2006 it was clear to combat veterans preparing once again for war that they would not be helping out their buddies in Iraq. When an additional division of 10,000 to 15,000 seasoned troops specializing in rugged terrain was also ordered to prepare for redeployment in the Persian Gulf Theater, enough red flags went up to stop the game.
Iraq is mostly flat.
Iran is mostly mountainous.
WE DON’T THINK SO
As Pulitzer-winning journalist Seymour Hersh has confirmed, the generals performed their sworn duty by rendering their professional opinion to the National Command Authority, to wit: “You’re out of your frickin’ minds.” [Democracy Now! Apr 12/06; New Yorker Apr 17/06]
US commanders pointed out that their tanks were not going to be taking any scenic drives through Persian peaks exceeding 7,000 feet, and occasionally topping out over 10,000. The missing oxygen required to sustain life would also not be enough to sustain heavy-lift helos attempting to chopper in all those bullets and beans well above their rated service ceilings.
“Bad idea,” they said. The Soviet Red Army had conclusively and catastrophically demonstrated what happens when troops attempting to assault unfamiliar mountain defiles without armor and adequate air support confront homeland defenders armed with anti-air and anti-vehicle rockets fighting from good cover. Especially when said shooters are not afraid to die.
“We can’t do this,” the generals told Rumsfeld and his amateur warmakers. “Your plan will not work. Most of our people will get killed.”
“No worries,” the Sec Def’s best and brightest assured the generals. “We’ll cross the eastern border from Afghanistan near Zahedan, and use the Iranian’s own railroad to transport everything we need down hundreds of miles of hotly contested train tracks right into Tehran.”
“After we’ve blown up the tracks and sidings in the preliminary air campaign to prevent the Iranian army from taking train rides?” the generals wanted to know. “How exactly will that work?” Even an intact stretch of track, they went on, can be put of commission by a disgruntled local tossing a single grenade.
“Relax,” the White House war wizards came about onto another tack. “We’ll air drop all the transport vehicles you need from high-flying C-130s.”
“You can’t HALO a Humvee!” the conquest-infatuated civilians were informed. In practice exercises, High Altitude drops of heavy vehicles attained terminal velocities before streaming their chutes at the moment of Low Opening. And stream they did! Humvees arriving beneath shredded canopies tended to shed wheels and parts in all directions, before bouncing their junked chassis 300 feet past ducking observers. At that point, the generals explained, jumping in and driving to Tehran was not really an option.
Another small problem, they pointed out, was that since breaking off all diplomatic relations with Iran more than a decade before, US military commanders with an urgent need for accurate Intel had zero clue what was happening inside that shrouded country.
Sure, they’d been violating Iran’s sovereign airspace as ordered, flying picture-snapping UAVs through the mountains looking for targets for months. But constant climbing and diving—and high winds in the mountain passes—had left the unpiloted Predators with little fuel for loitering.
Even when an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle did spot a feature of possible interest, it was often impossible to tell a painted plywood or Styrofoam decoy from a real truck or howitzer.
Just like what happened in Kosovo, the generals remembered, after a massive US-led aerial bombing campaign massacred civilians, initiated an industrial pollution holocaust, irradiated the country with uranium-waste warheads—and saw most of the Serbian artillery and tanks driven past UN Observers after the ceasefire.
No problem, said the White House. With more than 10,000 potential targets—many of them located in the center of modern cities like Tehran—we’ll simply bomb the crap out of the entire country. With oil fires deliberately lit off by the defenders blinding the US attackers’ night vision equipment—as well as Hellfire missile sensors, and the lasers needed to guide “smart bombs”—waves of terrain-challenged cruise missiles suffering from poor accuracy under ideal conditions, would somehow hedgehop mountain ridges to initially deluge Iranian cities and outlying centers with high explosives and depleted uranium.
Not coincidentally, this multi-billion dollar “urban renewal” project would generate tremendous profits for Bush administrators tied through banks and the Carlyle Group to US arms manufacturers, and reconstruction giants Halliburton and Bechtel.
This ruinous yet highly lucrative attack would be immediately followed by B-52s, “carpet bombing” Iranian cities and countryside—just like they’d done to Vietnam, Cambodia and Basra. Deeply buried nuclear research facilities would be used to “field test” experimental nuclear “bunker-busters”.
Nervous generals worried that the resulting clouds of radioactive dirt, debris and human flesh would rain downwind over Pakistan, India, Burma and China to the east, before contaminating North America and both hemispheres.
Nevertheless, according to my highly placed source, whose record of accurate inside information spans 15 years of our collaboration—and corroborated by Seymour Hersh—by March 2006 Pentagon war-gamers had drawn up “follow on” blueprints for non-democratic regime change in Iran. Following initial battle damage assessment over cratered towns and cities, F-16s, F-18s, and A-10 Warthogs firing radioactive cannon shells would go in at low level to finish off the survivors. “Bait” equipment would also be airdropped, and anyone who came out to investigate would be blown up.
Then US troops deploying out of Afghanistan would presumably cry “all aboard” and ride the rails through clouds of radiation to depose a legitimately elected apocalyptic president prone to language as provocative as their own. At the same time, supporting US forces would also begin humping through the mountains from any other dictatorial “stan” willing to support US aggression on their own Muslim brothers and sisters.
With the Strait of Hormuz—and most of the world’s oil supplies—temporarily shut down, and the US fleet in the Persian Gulf presumably sinking fast under swarms of 2,000 mph Iranian “Sunburn” anti-ship missiles and 200 mph torpedoes, naval logistics and air support would have to be provided from the Caspian Sea.
“Don’t the Russians own that?” the generals asked the NCA.
The White House had already offered to cut Putin in on the spoils, if the Russian president would facilitate US attacks on an allied country where he’d been forced to transplant Russia’s considerable oil and industrial investments in advance of Bush’s aggression on Iraq.
The NCA neglected to mention that their own Nuclear Emergency Search Team assessment had warned that if nukes were used, or a single nuclear power plant bombed, the entire region would be uninhabitable for at least a decade. Once made radioactive, NEST added, the world’s third biggest oil fields would be permanently unusable. [
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/doctrine/doe/o5530_2.htm]
Bush and Rumsfeld ignored NEST. Putin gave Bush the diplomatic finger.
It was Putin’s pugnacious “nyet” to Washington that provoked “dead eye” Dick Cheney to unlimber his trusty rhetorical blunderbuss and start blasting Russia’s “lack of democracy”.
With the Cold War being rapidly resurrected by White House “Christian” fundamentalists ticking off an apocalyptic agenda that must be fulfilled in their lifetime—that is, during their term in office—the generals realized that they must be prepared to arm-wrestle a Russian bear, as well as Iran’s 800,000-strong army.
And China, too, since that cranky country also held vital oil and other commercial interests in Iran.
With what? The generals guessed that by this point, if not much earlier, the rest of the world would probably not be their friends. Nuclear Armageddon would be their only option.
They balked.
MUTINY IN THE RANKS
As my source put it, the Bush-Rumsfeld plan was “Kind of like burning down a house to get to a piece of paper sitting on a table in the middle of the room. It’s totally insane.”
Too long unattended by a disinterested American public, the very same PNAC planners who had given their country consecutive disasters in Vietnam and Iraq were confronted by their senior officers and finally, firmly told no.
According to independent corroboration from two separate sources, the generals informed the White House that not only would their troops lose this new war before they kicked off into Iran, but the US Army and Marine Corps—already severely chewed up in Iraq—would to the joy of terrorist regimes everywhere be wrecked for decades to come.
The commanders of US ground forces destined for Iran bluntly told National Command Authority that if either Bush or Rumsfeld issued orders to enact “Little Bighorn, The Sequel”—their commands would be refused.
In April 2006 Bush choppered in to meet his commanders in the field. But the Commander-In-Chief’s personal intervention failed to elicit assurances that his senior officers would obey what some were quietly calling an “illegal” order to attack Iran.
Unwilling to risk certain mutiny—and still without informing Congress or the American public—the two-man National Command Authority backed down from issuing 3rd Phase deployment/attack orders for the invasion of Iran.
REMEMBER THE MADDOX AND MAINE
Undeterred, the White House war planners changed their story and tactics. “Keep your lips zipped,” recalcitrant commanders were told. “And keep your troops and logistics at Phase 2 readiness. Be ready to help out—in, er, Iraq—within 48-hours’ notice.”
Bush and Rumsfeld issued these updated stand by orders in late April 2006. As this story goes to press, US air, naval and ground forces remain “cocked and locked” for deployment to the Persian Gulf, “when the balloon goes up,” according to my source.
Or down.
Remember the Maine? Remember the Maddox? US military leaders now fear that a copycat Cuban or Tonkin Gulf incident will be either faked or provoked sometime soon in the ship-clogged Persian Gulf.
Once an Iranian attack on a US-flagged tanker or warship is announced, US commanders could be ordered to “counter-attack” with all available force—including nuclear weapons. Even if they suspected a ruse, no serving soldier can fail to protect his or her comrades. Any grunt or general who refused such a “go” command would risk immediate courts-martial, and charges of treason in a time of war.
Once again, the real treason would have come from a White House under siege from Congress, its own generals and an awakening populace—and increasingly desperate to fast-track the apocalypse “God” has personally commanded them to sponsor. As Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice recently reassured the homeless and hungry in Louisiana, “The Lord Jesus Christ is going to come on time.” [www.reopen911.org]
After Armageddon.
“It will be another Gulf of Tonkin,” my source reported. “They want it. They’ll have it. Even if they have to make it.”
Unless Congress and the American public back their courageous generals, and stop religious fundamentalists who may or may not command more weaponry than all other nations combined.
Troops keyed up for combat cannot be held on 48-hour alert indefinitely. And with the Iran bourse set to begin trading oil in euros next week—ending the dollar's dominance in that universal commodity—denial is no longer an option.
# # #
For fully illustrated version of this article, please see www.willthomas.net
About the Author:
After signing up to defend his country following the concocted Gulf of Tonkin incident, William Thomas trained four years in the US Navy Reserves before resigning his commission over the criminal folly of the Vietnam War.
e-mail:: willthomas@willthomas.net
homepage:: http://www.willthomas.net
Pro-Israel lobby in U.S. under attack
NOMOREWARFORISRAEL 13.May.2006 06:55
Pro-Israel lobby in U.S. under attack
http://www.upi.com/InternationalIntelligence/view.php?StoryID=20060...
http://www.itszone.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=49800
Intl. Intelligence
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."
"Hawkish Israeli Lobby Wants War with Iran!"
NOMOREWARFORISRAEL 13.May.2006 06:58
"Hawkish Israeli Lobby Wants War with Iran!"
http://baltimore.indymedia.org/newswire/display/12448/index.php
Mearsheimer replies to the irate "Israel Lobby"
NOMOREWARFORISRAEL 13.May.2006 07:01
Mearsheimer replies to the irate "Israel Lobby"
http://www.itszone.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=52407
Jewish Groups to Bush: Drop Iran-Israel
NOMOREWARFORISRAEL 13.May.2006 07:58
From: Jeff Blankfort
http://www.forward.com/articles/7764
Date: Thu May 11, 2006 10:10 pm
Subject: Jewish Groups to Bush: Drop Iran-Israel
This is acknowledged be a fallout from the Mearsheimer-Walt paper which correctly places most of the blame for the Iraq war on the Israel lobby. In fact, having the US confront Iran has been the main issue on the entire lobby's agenda, not just AIPACs for the past year and in December AIPAC publicly criticized Resident Bush for being soft on Iran. Now, with the war on Iraq having been proved a disaster, the collars around the lobby's white shirts are probably feeling a little tighter.
Groups to Bush: Drop Iran-Israel Linkage
By Ori Nir
May 12, 2006
WASHINGTON — Jewish community leaders have urged the White House to refrain from publicly pledging to defend Israel against possible Iranian hostilities, senior Jewish activists told the Forward.
Messages were passed to the White House through several channels, Jewish activists said. And it seems to have worked: Speaking before the annual conference of the American Jewish Committee in Washington last week — his most recent address before a Jewish audience — President Bush talked about America's commitment to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon and about his administration's commitment to Israeli security, but he did not link the two, as he has several times in recent months.
"We are basically telling the president: We appreciate it, we welcome it. But, hey, because there is this debate on Iraq, where people are trying to put the blame on us, maybe you shouldn't say it that often or that loud," said Abraham Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League. "Within the Jewish community there is a real sense of 'thank you but no thank you.'"
Communal leaders say that although they deeply appreciate the president's repeated promises to come to Israel's defense, public declarations to that effect do more harm than good. Such statements, they say, create an impression that the United States is considering a military option against Iran for the sake of Israel — and could lead to American Jews being blamed for any negative consequences of an American strike against Iran.
Jewish activists are concerned that "there would be [a scenario] just like with Iraq: the idea that somehow the Jewish community and the neoconservatives have dragged the United States into a conflict with Iran," said Martin Raffel, associate executive director of the Jewish Council for Public Affairs, a policy coordinating organization that brings together 13 national Jewish agencies and 123 local Jewish communities. "And if things go badly and our people are killed, then who is to blame?"
In early February, during an interview with Reuters, the president was asked about America's reaction to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad's threats against Israel. Bush replied: "We will rise to Israel's defense, if need be. So this kind of menacing talk is disturbing. It's not only disturbing to the United States, it's disturbing for other countries in the world, as well." Asked whether he meant that the United States would militarily defend Israel, Bush said: "You bet we'll defend Israel."
The White House's public liaison office has been ending its e-mails to the Jewish community with the following Bush quote from a March 20 appearance: "I made it clear. I'll make it clear again, that we will use military might to protect our ally, Israel." At the time, Bush was speaking about the threat posed by Iran.
Most Jewish communal leaders, despite their unease, say that the president talks about defending Israel from Iran out of a deep, personal commitment to the Jewish state.
"This comes from the heart," Foxman said.
Some, however, say that other factors may be at work, specifically the president's poor approval ratings, even among members of his political base. Two recent opinion polls show Bush's support among conservatives dropping, including among evangelicals, who consistently cite their support of Israel as a key political priority.
"I wouldn't be surprised if the White House is playing politics here," said an activist with a major Jewish group, speaking on condition of anonymity.
Jewish objections to the president's rhetoric have increased in recent weeks, as the storm created by a recent paper by two academics criticizing the influence of the "Israel Lobby" continues to grow. The study, co-authored by John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago and Stephen Walt of Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government, has been attracting support in national media outlets with its thesis that Israel, with the help of powerful supporters in Washington, has all but hijacked America's policy in the Middle East.
In one such article, Arnaud de Borchgrave, editor at large at United Press International, wrote April 24 that the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the lobbying powerhouse known as Aipac, "has maneuvered to make Israel the third rail of American foreign policy." In addition, more than 1,000 Americans, most of them university professors, have signed an online petition challenging the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, an umbrella body of 52 groups that serves as Jewish community's main united voice on Middle East issues, to "condemn" the "smearing" of Mearsheimer and Walt by several fellow scholars and pundits as "antisemites."
The executive vice chairman of the Presidents Conference, Malcolm Hoenlein, said that none of the Jewish organizations in the umbrella group had accused the two scholars of being antisemitic. But Juan Cole, the University of Michigan professor who initiated the petition, pointed out that the Anti-Defamation League has. In a comment on the study posted on its Web site in March, the ADL expressed the hope that "mainstream individuals and institutions will see it for what it is ññ a classical conspiratorial anti-Semitic analysis invoking the canards of Jewish power and Jewish control."
Even with the buzz surrounding Walt and Mearsheimer's paper, not everyone agrees that the president's statements are potentially damaging for the Jewish community. One senior official with a major Jewish group, speaking on condition of anonymity, said: "So what do [Jewish communal leaders] want? They want the president of Iran to be threatening Israel with nuclear destruction and the United States will say nothing? If that happens they would be complaining: 'Why aren't you committing yourselves to protecting Israel?'"
Robert Freedman, a professor of political science at Baltimore Hebrew University and an expert on Iran, calls the concerns about the president's statements "nonsense" and "foolish." First, he said, the case for tough action against Iran is stronger than the case was for action against Iraq — the intelligence this time is solid, the Iranian president says he wants to destroy Israel and Iran's possession of nuclear weapons poses a much greater danger to the region than Saddam Hussein's regime ever did. Second, according to Freedman, the risk of an entanglement in Iran is much smaller. A military campaign against Iran would most likely not involve a ground invasion, but an air bombing campaign. Third, he said, Israel is not in as good a position to carry out such a bombing campaign as the United States is.
"So," Freedman said, "if the president of the United States says, 'I am going to support Israel and we will not let Israel be destroyed,' that should be taken as a given and as a good given."
Jewish Groups to Bush(): Drop Iran-Israel
NOMOREWARFORISRAEL 13.May.2006 08:04
From: Jeff Blankfort
Date: Thu May 11, 2006 10:10 pm
Subject: Jewish Groups to Bush(): Drop Iran-Israel
This is acknowledged be a fallout from the Mearsheimer-Walt paper which correctly places most of the blame for the Iraq() war on the Israel lobby. In fact, having the US confront Iran has been the main issue on the entire lobby's agenda, not just AIPACs for the past year and in December AIPAC publicly criticized Resident Bush for being soft on Iran. Now, with the war on Iraq having been proved a disaster, the collars around the lobby's white shirts are probably feeling a little tighter.
www.forward.com/articles/7764
Groups to Bush: Drop Iran-Israel Linkage
By Ori Nir
May 12, 2006
WASHINGTON — Jewish community leaders have urged the White House to refrain from publicly pledging to defend Israel against possible Iranian hostilities, senior Jewish activists told the Forward.
Messages were passed to the White House through several channels, Jewish activists said. And it seems to have worked: Speaking before the annual conference of the American Jewish Committee in Washington last week — his most recent address before a Jewish audience — President Bush talked about America's commitment to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon and about his administration's commitment to Israeli security, but he did not link the two, as he has several times in recent months.
"We are basically telling the president: We appreciate it, we welcome it. But, hey, because there is this debate on Iraq, where people are trying to put the blame on us, maybe you shouldn't say it that often or that loud," said Abraham Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League. "Within the Jewish community there is a real sense of 'thank you but no thank you.'"
Communal leaders say that although they deeply appreciate the president's repeated promises to come to Israel's defense, public declarations to that effect do more harm than good. Such statements, they say, create an impression that the United States is considering a military option against Iran for the sake of Israel — and could lead to American Jews being blamed for any negative consequences of an American strike against Iran.
Jewish activists are concerned that "there would be [a scenario] just like with Iraq: the idea that somehow the Jewish community and the neoconservatives have dragged the United States into a conflict with Iran," said Martin Raffel, associate executive director of the Jewish Council for Public Affairs, a policy coordinating organization that brings together 13 national Jewish agencies and 123 local Jewish communities. "And if things go badly and our people are killed, then who is to blame?"
In early February, during an interview with Reuters, the president was asked about America's reaction to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad's threats against Israel. Bush replied: "We will rise to Israel's defense, if need be. So this kind of menacing talk is disturbing. It's not only disturbing to the United States, it's disturbing for other countries in the world, as well." Asked whether he meant that the United States would militarily defend Israel, Bush said: "You bet we'll defend Israel."
The White House's public liaison office has been ending its e-mails to the Jewish community with the following Bush quote from a March 20 appearance: "I made it clear. I'll make it clear again, that we will use military might to protect our ally, Israel." At the time, Bush was speaking about the threat posed by Iran.
Most Jewish communal leaders, despite their unease, say that the president talks about defending Israel from Iran out of a deep, personal commitment to the Jewish state.
"This comes from the heart," Foxman said.
Some, however, say that other factors may be at work, specifically the president's poor approval ratings, even among members of his political base. Two recent opinion polls show Bush's support among conservatives dropping, including among evangelicals, who consistently cite their support of Israel as a key political priority.
"I wouldn't be surprised if the White House is playing politics here," said an activist with a major Jewish group, speaking on condition of anonymity.
Jewish objections to the president's rhetoric have increased in recent weeks, as the storm created by a recent paper by two academics criticizing the influence of the "Israel Lobby" continues to grow. The study, co-authored by John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago and Stephen Walt of Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government, has been attracting support in national media outlets with its thesis that Israel, with the help of powerful supporters in Washington, has all but hijacked America's policy in the Middle East.
In one such article, Arnaud de Borchgrave, editor at large at United Press International, wrote April 24 that the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the lobbying powerhouse known as Aipac, "has maneuvered to make Israel the third rail of American foreign policy." In addition, more than 1,000 Americans, most of them university professors, have signed an online petition challenging the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, an umbrella body of 52 groups that serves as Jewish community's main united voice on Middle East issues, to "condemn" the "smearing" of Mearsheimer and Walt by several fellow scholars and pundits as "antisemites."
The executive vice chairman of the Presidents Conference, Malcolm Hoenlein, said that none of the Jewish organizations in the umbrella group had accused the two scholars of being antisemitic. But Juan Cole, the University of Michigan professor who initiated the petition, pointed out that the Anti-Defamation League has. In a comment on the study posted on its Web site in March, the ADL expressed the hope that "mainstream individuals and institutions will see it for what it is ññ a classical conspiratorial anti-Semitic analysis invoking the canards of Jewish power and Jewish control."
Even with the buzz surrounding Walt and Mearsheimer's paper, not everyone agrees that the president's statements are potentially damaging for the Jewish community. One senior official with a major Jewish group, speaking on condition of anonymity, said: "So what do [Jewish communal leaders] want? They want the president of Iran to be threatening Israel with nuclear destruction and the United States will say nothing? If that happens they would be complaining: 'Why aren't you committing yourselves to protecting Israel?'"
Robert Freedman, a professor of political science at Baltimore Hebrew University and an expert on Iran, calls the concerns about the president's statements "nonsense" and "foolish." First, he said, the case for tough action against Iran is stronger than the case was for action against Iraq — the intelligence this time is solid, the Iranian president says he wants to destroy Israel and Iran's possession of nuclear weapons poses a much greater danger to the region than Saddam Hussein's regime ever did. Second, according to Freedman, the risk of an entanglement in Iran is much smaller. A military campaign against Iran would most likely not involve a ground invasion, but an air bombing campaign. Third, he said, Israel is not in as good a position to carry out such a bombing campaign as the United States is.
"So," Freedman said, "if the president of the United States says, 'I am going to support Israel and we will not let Israel be destroyed,' that should be taken as a given and as a good given."
Scott Ritter takes aim at Bush, Sheehan, and you:
NOMOREWARFORISRAEL 15.May.2006 18:09
Scott Ritter takes aim at Bush, Sheehan, and you:
http://www.itszone.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=52699
US spells out plan to bomb Iran (for Israel):
DONTATTACKIRANFORISRAEl 18.May.2006 07:43
US spells out plan to bomb Iran (for Israel):
http://www.itszone.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=52903
US, ISRAEL OPERATE IN IRAN THROUGH KURDS AND MEK:
DONTATTACKIRANFORISRAEL 18.May.2006 19:50
US, ISRAEL OPERATE IN IRAN THROUGH KURDS AND MEK:
http://www.itszone.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=52944