Israel’s Lobby Imposes Crippling Sanctions on America — Again
Israel’s Lobby Imposes Crippling Sanctions on America — Again
By Grant Smith
Friday, March 12, 2010
http://alethonews.wordpress.com/2010/03/12/israel%E2%80%99s-lobby-imposes-crippling-sanctions-on-america-%E2%80%94-again/
The Israel lobby’s campaign against US and international corporations doing business with Iran is gearing up this week. The tip of the spear is the American Israel Public Affairs Committee sponsored expansion of the Iran Sanctions Act of 1996. If signed into law by president Obama, the legislation would institute onerous new monitoring to ensure exports never enter Iran, along with mandatory divestment from and penalties for any corporations discovered doing business in Iran. A new type of “office of special plans” at the Treasury Department that AIPAC and its think tank lobbied to create by executive order in 2004 is also on the warpath. Stuart Levey, the head of the office of “Terrorism and Financial Intelligence” is traveling to Switzerland, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Oman “pointing out that they face dramatic risks by doing business with Iran.” Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon finished a long set of meetings urging the US National Security Council to impose harsh sanctions on Iran.
The New York Times started the week with a list of corporations doing business in Iran and their US government procurement revenues. Most companies on this list long ago appeared on hit lists compiled by AIPAC for quiet divestment campaigns in state legislatures across the country. The New York Times ominously highlights in red any company that may be a “possible violator of the Iran Sanctions Act.” National Public Radio’s Scott Simon, after reading it, was apoplectic. He fretted aloud on the air whether US companies and subsidiaries on the target list were “betraying their country’s national security interests.”
What should Americans make of this drive to label all companies doing business with Iran unpatriotic smugglers? First, they should consider the source of the multi-tiered Iran sanctions drive. Then, they should start getting angry.
The proto Israel lobby was born in the cradle of a real arms theft and smuggling operation [pdf] that relentlessly preyed on the United States in the 1940s. Violating US arms export controls and bans on weapons transfers to the Middle East, this network certainly did “betray national security” — but managed to establish a small state in Palestine. The Director of US Central Intelligence judged that “U.S. national security is unfavorably affected by these developments and that it could be seriously jeopardized by continued illicit traffic in the implements of war.” That was an understatement, but none of the financiers of the arms smuggling network ever faced any consequences. When The Pledge, a tell-all book about the smuggling network, was published in 1970 the Department of Justice received public protests about the vast unpunished arms smuggling. The Internal Security Section duly wrote and internally circulated a 9-page book report about the people, dates, and crimes committed. The Chief of the Foreign Agents Registration Unit then responded to one protester that any arms smuggling prosecutions would be barred by the statute of limitations, though he did forward complaints to the FBI and State Department.
The Israel lobby further developed the ethos that “no crime for Israel would be punished in the US” when it allegedly stole and smuggled US weapons grade uranium from NUMEC, “an Israeli operation from the beginning” according to CIA Tel Aviv station chief John Hadden. A secret nuclear arsenal would allow Israel to initiate “The Samson Option” pulling down the entire world if it were ever threatened — a capability judged worth all the stealing and law breaking.
Isaiah L. Kenen, a propaganda officer for the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs office in New York in 1948, made it his business to infiltrate Israeli government mandates into US political party platforms while dodging Department of Justice orders that he register and conduct his business openly as an Israeli foreign agent. Like AIPAC this week, Kenen even used the New York Times as a trumpet in his November 2, 1961 Near East Report to deny that Dimona was a nuclear weapons plant. Six weeks after the DOJ cracked down with its final Foreign Agent order on Kenen and company in 1963 after a massive (Israeli-funded) stealth propaganda and lobbying campaign that rivaled the one currently unfurling in the US, Kenen was forced to abandon his American Zionist Council front for the Israeli government, and incorporated AIPAC in Washington, DC. AIPAC went on to stage a full assault on US governance — from attacking the sanctity of our electoral process to trafficking in classified national security information — all to acquire unprecedented power on behalf of its foreign principals.
The most relevant example of AIPAC-Israeli government tag-team law-breaking went on display this week in the form of 49 declassified FBI files. In 1984 71 major US corporations and worker organizations said “no” to an earlier AIPAC economic power grab (a demand to lower all US import barriers to Israeli products while allowing Israel to continue blocking US exports). Israeli minister of economics Dan Halpern stole [pdf] a US government document containing proprietary information and business secrets supplied by US industries most opposed to the Israel Lobby’s economic power grab. Halpern passed it to AIPAC, which made great use of it to undermine the entire advice and consent process. Douglas Bloomfield, AIPAC’s top lobbyist, even made an illicit copy of the classified document after AIPAC was explicitly ordered to return it to the US government (rather than ever do time in jail, Bloomfield now fantasizes about militarily playing the United Arab Emirates off Iran).
The aftermath of this earlier economic crime against US industry has now become clear. By locking many US products of export quantity out of Israel, the trade agreement has delivered an $80 billion dollar cumulative deficit (adjusted for inflation) to the US since enacted. In contrast, last year all other (legitimate) bilateral agreements with such countries as Singapore and Morocco actually produced a $86.33 billion total trade surplus to the US. AIPAC’s trajectory clearly indicates it is a true believer of Julius Caesar’s dictum “If you must break the law, do it to seize power, in all other cases observe it.” But does such ill-gotten might make right?
Americans should be outraged that a foreign lobby like AIPAC is actually trying to write the rules — when warranted application of the law would have abolished it years ago. AIPAC and other nodes of Israel’s lobby successfully broke important US laws to seize power in America. They now expect US private enterprise and workers — the world’s best — to open their own little “offices of special plans” to carefully track company products, profits, and investments in the name of Israel. But this new tax ignores some mighty important facts.
Iran is a signatory to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and there’s no evidence that it is anywhere near producing nuclear weapons. Non-signatory Israel, with its vast secret arsenal of nuclear weapons — likely built with uranium stolen (but never paid for) from the United States — suddenly demands rule of law from America. Laws drafted by AIPAC. (And by the way, it’ll cost taxpayers at least $76 million to clean up the nuclear waste at NUMEC.)
Israel and its US lobby actually think Americans will go for all of this, that we’re a forgetful and obedient lot, who don’t care much about our laws, economy, or jobs — who are just aching to get into AIPAC’s newly fabricated economic straightjacket.
Better think again.
===
AIPAC of Raving Lunatics .
Friday, 12 March 2010
Keith Johnson
http://www.rebelnews.org/opinion/middle-east/195560-aipac-of-raving-lunatics
AIPAC of Raving Lunatics Without regard for the severe economic devastation and loss of life that a war with Iran would create, Israel’s agents in the United States continue to aggressively stoke the fires of anti-Iranian rhetoric and mobilize their minions on the floor of the House. The Brzezinski-Soros machine failed in their attempt to effect regime change in Iran by way of a “color revolution” in the summer of 2009. This has only emboldened the Israeli lobby to pursue more drastic measures. There is only one card left for them to play before provoking conflicts that will most certainly catapult the United States into direct military action against the Islamic state.
Tuesday, the American Israeli Political Action Committee gave their marching orders to their congressional War Hawks. The message was short, concise and clear. Here is the text of the letter AIPAC sent to members of Congress:
Dear Congressman XXXX,
We are writing to every member of Congress to express outrage at the U.S. government’s continuing relationship with dozens of companies doing business with Iran. These ongoing financial dealings undermine longstanding American efforts to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability.
As the New York Times reported on Sunday, the federal government during the past decade has awarded $107 billion in contracts and grants to more than 70 companies that are doing business in Iran. More than two-thirds of these contracts have gone to companies involved in Iran’s energy industry despite American law to discourage such involvement.
The time has long since passed this policy to change. Unfortunately, as the Times points out, three successive American administrations have failed to enforce the Iran Sanctions Act of 1996, which mandates U.S. sanctions on firms investing more than $20 million in Iran’s energy sector. While Presidents Clinton, Bush and Obama may have discouraged some investment in Iran through their rhetoric, the United States has sent the American and international business community a contradictory message by failing to enforce the law.
Despite publicly acknowledged investments by several companies of hundreds of millions of dollars in Iran’s energy sector, the U.S. Government has inexplicably failed to make even one determination of an investment of $20 million during the course of the past decade. Yet, throughout this entire time, Iran has pursued a nuclear weapons capability, flouting its international obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and presenting the international community with a growing, and now urgent, threat.
As Iran continues to reject U.S.-European engagement efforts and to defy U.N. Security Council resolutions requiring that it halt its illicit uranium enrichment efforts, the United States must take action now.
We call on Congress to:
1. Investigate why successive administrations have failed to implement the law by failing to determine what companies have invested in the Iranian energy sector;
2. Enact—without delay—the Iran sanctions legislation currently before Congress, which, inter alia, contains provisions barring federal contracts to companies which are investing in Iran’s energy sector or providing sensitive technology, and their parents or subsidiaries who are engaged in such activity;
3. Demand that the U.S. Government enforce existing sanctions law and impose crippling new sanctions on Iran.
In addition to these actions, we hope you will join with us in urging the administration to impose tough new multilateral sanctions with like-minded states without delay while continuing to pursue the widest possible sanctions through the U.N. Security Council.
Sincerely,
David Victor
President
Howard Kohr
Executive Director
These are pretty strong words coming from an organization which has stood in defiance of U.S. law that requires them to register as agents of a foreign power. It proves once again that the “A” in AIPAC really should be removed from their acronym. There is nothing “American” about them. This is the Israeli lobby, plain and simple. They represent Israel first and last. The United States is nothing more than a host to their endless parasitism. This letter should be an insult to anyone familiar with the State of Israel and it’s long history of refusing to comply with International laws and treaties. It reeks of hypocrisy. It’s an exercise in contempt. There is no country on the face of this earth with less justification to level these charges or make such demands.
First of all, Iran has no nuclear weapons capability. As recently as February 11, 2010, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs responded to a claim by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that Iran had produced the first stock of 20 percent enriched uranium. Gibbs said, “The Iranian nuclear program has undergone a series of problems throughout the year. We do not believe they have the capability to enrich to the degree to which they now say they are enriching.” The enriched uranium that Ahmadinejad was referring to was not for building a nuclear weapon but rather for medical isotopes used to treat cancer patients. And even if they did have the capability of enriching to 20 percent, it still falls far short of the nearly 98% that is required for building a weapon of mass destruction. As a signer of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Iran has a legal right to enrich uranium in the manner that they are claiming. On the other hand, Israel has refused to sign the NNPT and has no right to make demands of anyone pertaining to nuclear technology.
While the author of this letter points out that “the federal government has awarded $107 billion in contracts and grants to more than 70 companies that are doing business in Iran,” it fails to recognize that 14 of those companies have already pulled out and that 11 plan no future investment. Of the 49 remaining, only 3 are suspected of being in violation of the “Iran Sanctions Act”. Those three companies are Daelim (South Korea), Dutch Royal Shell (Netherlands) and Total (France). Of the $174 million that Daelim received in contract money from the U.S., $111 million was used to build family housing towers for the U.S. Army. Dutch Royal Shell received $11.2 billion in contracts and that investment was instrumental in supplying a significant amount of gasoline to the U.S. military. Not one American company currently doing business and planning future investment in Iran is suspected of being in violation of the “Iran Sanctions Act”.
The author demands that Congress enact current legislation that bars companies from investing in Iran’s energy sector. But this is in direct conflict with Article IV of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Iran is a signer of that treaty, and that obligates the United States to help them build power plants and other facilities for non-military purposes.
If anyone should be barred from receiving federal contracts or aid it is the State of Israel, who has refused to sign the NNPT and have illegally pursued a nuclear weapons program of their own. The 1976 Symington Amendment to the Foreign Appropriations Bill of 1961 forbids the United States from giving foreign aid to any nation that is developing nuclear technology outside the NNPT. Despite this, approximately 1/3 of the total foreign aid budget of the United States is annually sent to Israel even though they comprise less than .001 of the world’s population and has one of the world’s highest per capita incomes. Former Congressman James Traficant rightly pointed out recently that between the direct foreign aid grants to Israel, along with all of the other benefits including trade compacts, economic and military assistance, “Israel gets approximately $15 billion a year from the American taxpayers. That $15 billion is $30,000 for every man, woman and child in Israel.”
In his list of demands, the author urges Congress to “pursue the widest possible sanctions through the U.N. Security Council.” This is the height of hypocrisy. Neither the State of Israel nor its agents have any standing with the United Nations in this regard. Since its inception, the State of Israel has been in violation of more UN resolutions than any other nation on earth.
Who else but a raving lunatic would even dare to write such a letter in light of the insurmountable evidence that contradicts each and every line of their text? There is no other explanation; a lunatic wrote this letter. And if Congress acts in lock step to their demands, then it should be abundantly clear to all of us that the lunatics, have indeed, taken over the asylum.
Without regard for the severe economic devastation and loss of life that a war with Iran would create, Israel’s agents in the United States continue to aggressively stoke the fires of anti-Iranian rhetoric and mobilize their minions on the floor of the House. The Brzezinski-Soros machine failed in their attempt to effect regime change in Iran by way of a “color revolution” in the summer of 2009. This has only emboldened the Israeli lobby to pursue more drastic measures. There is only one card left for them to play before provoking conflicts that will most certainly catapult the United States into direct military action against the Islamic state.
Tuesday, the American Israeli Political Action Committee gave their marching orders to their congressional War Hawks. The message was short, concise and clear. Here is the text of the letter AIPAC sent to members of Congress:
Dear Congressman XXXX,
We are writing to every member of Congress to express outrage at the U.S. government’s continuing relationship with dozens of companies doing business with Iran. These ongoing financial dealings undermine longstanding American efforts to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability.
As the New York Times reported on Sunday, the federal government during the past decade has awarded $107 billion in contracts and grants to more than 70 companies that are doing business in Iran. More than two-thirds of these contracts have gone to companies involved in Iran’s energy industry despite American law to discourage such involvement.
The time has long since passed this policy to change. Unfortunately, as the Times points out, three successive American administrations have failed to enforce the Iran Sanctions Act of 1996, which mandates U.S. sanctions on firms investing more than $20 million in Iran’s energy sector. While Presidents Clinton, Bush and Obama may have discouraged some investment in Iran through their rhetoric, the United States has sent the American and international business community a contradictory message by failing to enforce the law.
Despite publicly acknowledged investments by several companies of hundreds of millions of dollars in Iran’s energy sector, the U.S. Government has inexplicably failed to make even one determination of an investment of $20 million during the course of the past decade. Yet, throughout this entire time, Iran has pursued a nuclear weapons capability, flouting its international obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and presenting the international community with a growing, and now urgent, threat.
As Iran continues to reject U.S.-European engagement efforts and to defy U.N. Security Council resolutions requiring that it halt its illicit uranium enrichment efforts, the United States must take action now.
We call on Congress to:
1. Investigate why successive administrations have failed to implement the law by failing to determine what companies have invested in the Iranian energy sector;
2. Enact—without delay—the Iran sanctions legislation currently before Congress, which, inter alia, contains provisions barring federal contracts to companies which are investing in Iran’s energy sector or providing sensitive technology, and their parents or subsidiaries who are engaged in such activity;
3. Demand that the U.S. Government enforce existing sanctions law and impose crippling new sanctions on Iran.
In addition to these actions, we hope you will join with us in urging the administration to impose tough new multilateral sanctions with like-minded states without delay while continuing to pursue the widest possible sanctions through the U.N. Security Council.
Sincerely,
David Victor
President
Howard Kohr
Executive Director
These are pretty strong words coming from an organization which has stood in defiance of U.S. law that requires them to register as agents of a foreign power. It proves once again that the “A” in AIPAC really should be removed from their acronym. There is nothing “American” about them. This is the Israeli lobby, plain and simple. They represent Israel first and last. The United States is nothing more than a host to their endless parasitism. This letter should be an insult to anyone familiar with the State of Israel and it’s long history of refusing to comply with International laws and treaties. It reeks of hypocrisy. It’s an exercise in contempt. There is no country on the face of this earth with less justification to level these charges or make such demands.
First of all, Iran has no nuclear weapons capability. As recently as February 11, 2010, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs responded to a claim by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that Iran had produced the first stock of 20 percent enriched uranium. Gibbs said, “The Iranian nuclear program has undergone a series of problems throughout the year. We do not believe they have the capability to enrich to the degree to which they now say they are enriching.” The enriched uranium that Ahmadinejad was referring to was not for building a nuclear weapon but rather for medical isotopes used to treat cancer patients. And even if they did have the capability of enriching to 20 percent, it still falls far short of the nearly 98% that is required for building a weapon of mass destruction. As a signer of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Iran has a legal right to enrich uranium in the manner that they are claiming. On the other hand, Israel has refused to sign the NNPT and has no right to make demands of anyone pertaining to nuclear technology.
While the author of this letter points out that “the federal government has awarded $107 billion in contracts and grants to more than 70 companies that are doing business in Iran,” it fails to recognize that 14 of those companies have already pulled out and that 11 plan no future investment. Of the 49 remaining, only 3 are suspected of being in violation of the “Iran Sanctions Act”. Those three companies are Daelim (South Korea), Dutch Royal Shell (Netherlands) and Total (France). Of the $174 million that Daelim received in contract money from the U.S., $111 million was used to build family housing towers for the U.S. Army. Dutch Royal Shell received $11.2 billion in contracts and that investment was instrumental in supplying a significant amount of gasoline to the U.S. military. Not one American company currently doing business and planning future investment in Iran is suspected of being in violation of the “Iran Sanctions Act”.
The author demands that Congress enact current legislation that bars companies from investing in Iran’s energy sector. But this is in direct conflict with Article IV of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Iran is a signer of that treaty, and that obligates the United States to help them build power plants and other facilities for non-military purposes.
If anyone should be barred from receiving federal contracts or aid it is the State of Israel, who has refused to sign the NNPT and have illegally pursued a nuclear weapons program of their own. The 1976 Symington Amendment to the Foreign Appropriations Bill of 1961 forbids the United States from giving foreign aid to any nation that is developing nuclear technology outside the NNPT. Despite this, approximately 1/3 of the total foreign aid budget of the United States is annually sent to Israel even though they comprise less than .001 of the world’s population and has one of the world’s highest per capita incomes. Former Congressman James Traficant rightly pointed out recently that between the direct foreign aid grants to Israel, along with all of the other benefits including trade compacts, economic and military assistance, “Israel gets approximately $15 billion a year from the American taxpayers. That $15 billion is $30,000 for every man, woman and child in Israel.”
In his list of demands, the author urges Congress to “pursue the widest possible sanctions through the U.N. Security Council.” This is the height of hypocrisy. Neither the State of Israel nor its agents have any standing with the United Nations in this regard. Since its inception, the State of Israel has been in violation of more UN resolutions than any other nation on earth.
Who else but a raving lunatic would even dare to write such a letter in light of the insurmountable evidence that contradicts each and every line of their text? There is no other explanation; a lunatic wrote this letter. And if Congress acts in lock step to their demands, then it should be abundantly clear to all of us that the lunatics, have indeed, taken over the asylum.
Who’s to blame for the Iraq war?
Who’s to blame for the Iraq war?
http://www.islamtimes.org/vdca0anu.49n661gtk4.html
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article24945.htm
http://america-hijacked.com/2010/02/18/fragmentation-of-iraq-was-israels-strategy/
Be sure to click on the Scott McClellan link at the following URL:
http://neoconzionistthreat.blogspot.com/2008/08/dont-let-neocon-agenda-get-us-into.html
Be sure to click on the Colin Powell link at the following URL:
http://neoconzionistthreat.blogspot.com/2008/06/transparent-cabal-neoconservative.html
Britain’s Inquiry into the Iraq War and the Israel Lobby Taboo
http://tinyurl.com/IsraelLobbyTaboo
Juan Cole on Israel and its Lobby: Ideological Blinders or Hidden Meaning
US Israel Policy got us into Afghanistan
http://america-hijacked.com/2010/02/17/us-israel-policy-got-us-into-afghanistan/
New York agrees World Trade Center 9/11 dust payout
New York agrees World Trade Center 9/11 dust payout
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8563554.stm
Even more US taxpayer billions paid out as a result of US support for Israel’s brutal oppression of the Palestinians which was the primary motivation for the tragic attacks on the World Trade Center on 9/11 (and earlier in 1993 as one can look ‘Israel as a terrorist’s motivation’ in the index of James Bamford’s ‘A Pretext for War’ book as well):
What Motivated the 9/11 Hijackers? See testimony most didn’t:
http://tinyurl.com/911motivation
Additional via http://tinyurl.com/motivation911
Commentary-Bidens-Operation-Boondoggle
http://america-hijacked.com/2010/02/15/george-washington-a-passionate-attachment-and-israel/
Now take a listen to what Biden had to say in Israel the other day as Washington must be rolling in his grave!:
US-Israel Relations:
Brownfeld Reviews Transparent Cabal in WRMEA
Brownfeld Reviews Transparent Cabal in WRMEA
Monday, March 8, 2010 6:09 PM
From: “Stephen Sniegoski”
Friends,
The following is a very favorable, informative review of my book, “The Transparent Cabal,” by Allan C. Brownfeld in the March 2010 issue of the “Washington Report on Middle East Affairs.”
http://tinyurl.com/brownfeldtransparentcabal
Allan C. Brownfeld is a syndicated columnist and the author of five books, the latest of which is “The Revolution Lobby” (Council for Inter-American Security). Brownfeld is editor of “Issues,” the quarterly journal of the American Council for Judaism, an associate editor of “The Lincoln Review,” and a contributing editor to such publications as “Human Events,” “The St. Croix Review,” and the “Washington Report on Middle East Affairs.” He has been a staff aide to a U.S. Vice President, Members of Congress, and the U.S. Senate Internal Subcommittee.
A fuller biography can be found at:
http://www.fgfbooks.com/AllanBrownfeld/aBrownfeld-bio.html
The “Washington Report on Middle East Affairs” is a 100-page magazine published 9 times per year in Washington, DC, that focuses on news and analysis from and about the Middle East and U.S. policy in that region.
Best,
Stephen Sniegoski
Transparent Cabal Website:
http://home.comcast.net/~transparentcabal/
Amazon listing of The Transparent Cabal:
—————————————————————————————————-
Sniegoski Book Examines Role of American Neocons in Taking the U.S. to War in Iraq
By Allan C. Brownfeld
Washington Report on Middle East Affairs
March 2010
Israel and Judaism, Pages 42-43, 65
http://tinyurl.com/brownfeldtransparentcabal
FOR MANY Americans, the basis for the 2003 U.S. attack on Iraq remains something of a mystery. The reasons the Bush administration cited for going to war—that Iraq had ties with al-Qaeda, that it possessed weapons of mass destruction and that, somehow, it was involved in the terrorist attacks of 9/11—have all been proven to be false. It is, some argued, as if, after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, we declared war on Mexico.
There were, however, a group of men and women in and out of government who had been proposing such an attack on Iraq even before 9/11. These were American neoconservatives—including such leading Bush administration officials as Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Douglas Feith and L. Lewis “Scooter” Libby. What exactly motivated these supporters of war with a country that never attacked us and posed little threat to the U.S.? This is the subject of the important book The Transparent Cabal by Stephen J. Sniegoski (available from the AET Book Club; see p. 57).
Dr. Sniegoski’s focus on the neoconservative involvement in U.S. foreign policy antedates the 9/11 terrorist attacks. His first major work on the subject, The War On Iraq: Conceived in Israel, was published Feb. 10, 2003—more than a month before the U.S. launched its “Shock and Awe” campaign.
His latest book, Sniegoski points out, “examines a controversial and in some respects taboo subject: the close relationship of the American neoconservatives with the Israeli Likudnik right, and their role as the fundamental drivers of the Bush administration’s militant American policy in the Middle East—a policy which inspired both the 2003 war in Iraq and the equally militant solutions contemplated since for other Middle East policy problems…[These] have their common origin in the orientation of the neoconservative policy towards service of the interests of Israel. This orientation is at the root of the explanation for why our policy does not seem to address or correspond with the genuine security needs of the U.S….Ideology and personal ties have blinded them to what most others clearly see as the foreign policy reality.”
“The overarching goal of both the neoconservatives and the Likudniks was to create an improved strategic environment for Israel,” Sniegoski notes. “This does not necessarily mean that the neoconservatives were deliberately promoting the interests of Israel at the expense of the U.S. Instead, they maintained that an identity of interests existed between the two countries—Israel’s enemies being ipso facto America’s enemies. However, it is apparent that the neocons viewed American foreign policy in the Middle East through the lens of Israeli interest, as Israeli interest was perceived by the Likudniks.”
The difference between neoconservative policies and those developed by the traditional foreign policy establishment was stark, according to Sniegoski: “In contrast to the traditional goal of stability, the neocons called for destabilizing existing regimes. Of course, the neocons couched their policy in terms of the eventual restabilization of the region on a democratic basis…Likudnik strategy saw the benefit of regional destabilization for its own sake—creating as it would an environment of weak, disunified states or statelets involved in internal and external conflicts that could be easily dominated by Israel…Thus, unlike a true ‘cabal,’ characterized by secrecy, the neoconservatives’ was a ‘transparent cabal’—oxymoronic as that term might be.”
During the 1990s—long before the 9/11 terrorist assault upon the U.S.—the neoconservatives were quite open about their goal of war in the Middle East to destabilize Iraq and other enemies of Israel. In Sniegoski’s view, “A clear illustration of the neocon thinking on this subject—and intimate connection with Israeli security—was a 1996 paper entitled ‘A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing The Realm,’ published by an Israeli think tank, the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies.”
Included in the study group that prepared the report for the incoming Likud government of Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu were figures who would loom large in the George W. Bush administration’s war policy in the Middle East: Richard Perle, Douglas Feith and David Wurmser (who was then actually affiliated with the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies). Perle was listed as head of the study group.
The “realm” that the study group sought to secure was Israel’s. The paper recommended that Netanyahu should “make a clean break” with the Oslo peace process and reassert Israel’s claim to the West Bank and Gaza, and presented a plan by which Israel would “shape its strategic environment”—beginning with the removal of Saddam Hussain and the installation of a Hashemite monarchy in Baghdad. Significantly, the report did not present Saddam’s Iraq as a major threat to Israel. Rather, Iraq was seen more as the weakest link among Israel’s enemies. By removing Saddam, the study argued, Israel would be in a strategic position to get at its more dangerous foes.
The elimination of Saddam was presented as a first step toward reconfiguring the entire Middle East for the benefit of Israel. “Israel can shape its strategic environment in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by weakening, containing and even rolling back Syria,” the study maintained. “This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussain from power in Iraq—an important strategic objective in its own right-—as a means of foiling Syria’s regional ambitions.”
Continue at:
David Ignatius/Neo-Con Media: Oh What a Lovely War
David Ignatius/Neo-Con Media: Oh What a Lovely War
By Philip Giraldi
Wilkinson Review of Transparent Cabal
Wilkinson Review of Transparent Cabal
Thursday, March 4, 2010 6:21 PM
From: “Stephen Sniegoski”
To: “Sniegoski, Stephen”
Friends,
The following is a favorable review of my book, “The Transparent Cabal,” by Tim Wilkinson. Originally published in the February issue of “Culture Wars” magazine, it is can now be found at Wilkinson’s website.
http://surelysomemistake.blogspot.com/2010/02/book-review-transparent-cabal-by.html
I have one significant difference with Wilkinson which pertains to his maintenance of vestiges of the oil-for-war thesis. I just don’t see any empirical proof for the oil view and there is considerable evidence against it—people associated with oil who were not for war. I devote Chapter 18 of “The Transparent Cabal” to the oil issue. And I commented on the oil issue on Tim Wilkinson’s site.
See also my article “Not oil but Israel”
http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/snieg_oilwar.htm
Best,
Steve Sniegoski
Transparent Cabal Website:
http://home.comcast.net/~transparentcabal/
Amazon listing of The Transparent Cabal:
Best,
Stephen Sniegoski
___________________________________________________________________________
http://surelysomemistake.blogspot.com/2010/02/book-review-transparent-cabal-by.html
Book Review by Tim Wilkinson, originally published in Culture Wars, 29:3 (February 2010).
The Transparent Cabal: The Neoconservative Agenda, War in the Middle East, and the National Interest of Israel by Stephen Sniegoski (Foreword by Congressman Paul Findley Introduction by Paul Gottfried).
(Enigma Editions, Norfolk Virginia 2008).
In this meticulously researched and cogently argued book, Stephen Sniegoski presents the thesis that the 2003 Iraq war was, at root, all about Israel.
More precisely, Sniegoski argues that
“the origins of the American war on Iraq revolve around the United States’ adoption of a war agenda whose basic format was conceived in Israel to advance Israeli interests and was ardently pushed by the influential pro-Israeli American neoconservatives, both inside and outside the Bush administration…
Such a thesis does not mean that the neoconservatives intentionally sought to aid Israel at the expense of the United States, but rather that they have seen American foreign policy through the lens of Israeli interest.”
Sniegoski identifies the neocons as a group and establishes that they have, at least since the late sixties, been strongly motivated by a close identification with the state of Israel, and specifically with a Likudnik view of that state’s interests. A substantial part of the book (the best part of five chapters) is dedicated to a detailed history of the neocons, and a huge amount of evidence is amassed, making this part of the book useful as a general – if not definitive – reference on the history of the neocons.
Among the events covered in this section are the neocons’ move from the Democratic to the Republican party – apparently motivated by the latter’s more congenial attitude to an aggressive foreign-policy – and their wielding of disproportionate influence by means of a network of interconnected, overlapping and mutually supportive think tanks, which also extended to explicitly pro-Israel and indeed Israeli, and Israeli government, institutions.
The evidence adduced for the neocons’ strong attachment to – even preoccupation with – a certain view of Israeli interests is overwhelming. Besides their connections with the Israeli foreign policy establishment, Sniegoski adduces in evidence a number of policy documents, detailed below, which make it quite clear that the neocons were directly concerned with the interests, as they saw them, of Israel, unmediated by a conception of US interests.
In the course of establishing the neocons’ attachment to Israel, Sniegoski goes further and relates the development of a specific war strategy for the middle east originating with right-wing Israeli strategists, and carried forward both in Israel and among American neoconservatives, culminating in the emergence of the specific neocon plan to bring down Saddam. Sniegoski describes a consistent strategy which varies in its details but not in its central focus: the geopolitical ‘reconfiguration’ of the Middle East by a weakening of Israel’s neighbour states, generally by means of destabilisation and fragmentation.
Continue at:
http://surelysomemistake.blogspot.com/2010/02/book-review-transparent-cabal-by.html
Lawrence Wilkerson conveys Iraq war for oil when he knows it was for Israel!
Be sure to watch the interview with Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson (former assistant to Colin Powell) via the following video segment which aired earlier tonight on MSNBC:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/vp/35717739#35717739
Colonel Wilkerson knows that the Iraq war was to secure the realm for Israel (look what he mentions about the Jewish/pro-Israel lobby in his excellent interview which was included in the following Dutch documentary about AIPAC) in accordance with the ‘A Clean Break’ agenda of JINSA/PNAC/AEI Neocons Richard Perle, David Wurmser and Douglas Feith (access the ‘A Clean Break’ link at the upper right of http://NEOCONZIONISTTHREAT.COM if interested further):
Must watch Dutch documentary on the Israeli Lobby (the interviews to include with John Mearsheimer are in English):
The Israel Lobby. Portrait of a Great Taboo :
AIPAC’s Push for War with Iran
Here is a Google video for the English version of that Dutch AIPAC documentary (must watch especially for what Lawrence Wilkerson mentions about WW 3 at the end!):
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3994543425032066015&q=&hl=en
http://freedocumentaries.org/film.php?id=173
Take a look at the following article to see how how Colonel Wilkerson had called JINSA (‘A Clean Break’) Neocon Douglas Feith a ‘card-carrying member of the Likud party’
JINSA associated Israel first neocon Feith a ‘card-carrying member of the Likud party according to Lawrence Wilkerson
Bad Blood and an Empty Chair
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/19/AR2008061903150.html
Additional at following URL:
Will Stephen J. Sniegoski’s Dissection of the Neocons Get ‘Boycotted’?
Even Colin Powell had conveyed that the ‘JINSA crowd’ was in control of the Pentagon:
Colin Powell Blamed Iraq War Plans on ‘Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs’
Colin Powell is a Hypocrite
http://neoconzionistthreat.blogspot.com/2008/10/colin-powell-is-hypocrite.html
——————————
A War for Israel? Colin Powell seems to think so:
Even Chris Matthews conveyed (on his MSNBC ‘Hardball’ program earlier today) that JINSA Neocon Michael Ledeen is advising Mit Romney:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036697/vp/35715440#35715440
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036697/vp/35715687#35715687
Additional about JINSA and similar via: http://tinyurl.com/mearsheimer
Colonel Wilkerson might be interested in taking a look at the following write-up by Dr. Stephen Sniegoski about the ‘war for oil’ aspect for the Iraq quagmire:
Wilkinson Review of Transparent Cabal
http://america-hijacked.com/2010/03/04/wilkinson-review-of-transparent-cabal/
Many Voices Calling for War with Iran
Many Voices Calling for War with Iran
http://original.antiwar.com/giraldi/2010/03/03/many-voices-calling-for-war-with-iran/
Posted By Philip Giraldi On March 3, 2010 @ 11:00 pm
Wanting to go to war with Iran has created some very strange bedfellows. Leading neoconservative Daniel Pipes’ assertion that President Barack Obama can salvage his presidency and get reelected by attacking Iran is about as low as it gets, suggesting as it does that an act of war can and should serve as a diversion from a failed domestic agenda. The soldiers and civilians who would inevitably die in such a conflict might not agree with Pipes that all is fair in politics. They would no doubt consider themselves betrayed and manipulated by a venal and disconnected political leadership, but no matter. It would not be a first time a neocon would consider a non-neocon casualty little more than a disagreeable statistic.
Sarah Palin is on the Pipes bandwagon, showing up at the mid-February Nashville Tea Party convention sporting an Israeli flag lapel pin and subsequently urging the president to do the right thing in supporting Israel by attacking Iran. As she put it, President Obama would improve his chances of re-election by showing people how tough he is. Pipes is at least smart enough to understand the implications of what he was saying, but Palin apparently was just parroting a line fed to her by Bill Kristol or one of her other handlers. Even Dick Cheney found the Palin line to be too much, pointing out that no one should go to war for reasons of domestic politics. Whether he actually believes that or not is unclear.
But possibly the most bizarre commentary supporting war with Iran was penned by Anne Applebaum for the Washington Post on February 23rd. Applebaum is married to the reliably conservative Polish Foreign Minister Radek Sikorski, who is himself an American Enterprise Institute alumnus. She is an Obama supporter but generally has been described as a conservative who adheres to a hard line on foreign policy issues, perhaps not too surprising a triangulation as Obama himself has betrayed a goodly percentage of his flock by moving in the same direction. She sometimes confuses her personal agenda with her public advocacy, writing, for example, several articles calling on Roman Polanski to be freed while her husband in his official capacity was garnering support from the European diplomatic community to the same end.
Applebaum’s ”Ready for an Iran war?“ is not particularly subtle but it is interesting how she frames her argument. The first three quarters of the piece could almost be considered an antiwar statement. It details just how bad a war with Iran could be in terms of the possible consequences. She notes that the US does not want to attack Iran because no one knows where all the nuclear sites are, because an attack would only set back the alleged weapons program by a few months, and because Iran could easily engage in serious retaliation both against US troops in the region and against Israel. Applebaum also recognizes that oil prices would surge as soon as military action started. And she then goes on to argue that the Israelis likely have the same reservations about the efficacy of an attack on Iran. So far so good.
But then she shifts gears, warning “At some point, that calculation could change” because “the Israelis regard the Iranian nuclear program as a matter of life and death” due to the “Iranian president’s provocative attacks on Israel’s right to exist.” Per Applebaum, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad supports “historians who deny the Holocaust” and suggests that Israelis might become “the target of an attempted mass murder.”
Applebaum then posits that there might well be a 2 a.m. phone call to the White House from the Israeli Prime Minister announcing the completion of a bombing attack on Iran. “I don’t want this to happen – but I do want us to be prepared if it does,” concluding that “I do hope that this administration is ready, militarily and psychologically, not for a war of choice but for an unwanted war of necessity. This is real life, after all, not Hollywood.”
Actually Applebaum’s analysis is itself more like Hollywood than real life and its claim of “necessity” is little more than an appreciation that someone you have just struck might attempt to hit you back. A little fact checking for her article might have also proven useful. Iran is a military midget compared to Israel. It has no nuclear weapons and is apparently far away from obtaining them even if it makes a decision to do so and can master the necessary enrichment technology. Israel has a large secret nuclear arsenal together with missiles and submarines to deliver the weapons on target. Iran, far from a nation bent on a genocidal suicide mission, has never threatened to destroy or attack Israel while Israel has repeatedly threatened to use force against Iran. Many reported Iranian government “statements” to the contrary are deliberate mistranslations.
Applebaum cleverly dresses her scenario in a cloak of inevitability, suggesting to the reader that “this is what is going to happen.” Her dire forecast is intended to increase American acceptance of the likelihood of a preemptive war with Iran, but war is by no means certain if everyone involved makes a serious effort to avoid it. As Israel knows its air force cannot cripple Iran, its government has had to devise a scheme to get the US to do it instead, which is precisely what is being promoted by Anne Applebaum, Daniel Pipes, and all the other usual suspects who have already brought America fun and games in Iraq and Afghanistan. Vladimir Ilyich Lenin used to describe people like Applebaum as “useful idiots,” journalists who advance a cause in the belief that they are supporting something worthwhile, not understanding that they have been manipulated.
How to stop an Israeli attack? All the White House has to do is to say “no” to Israel firmly and publicly and tie that no to a commitment to cut off all military and economic aid to Tel Aviv if Bibi Netanyahu opts to do otherwise. Applebaum only sees realpolitik in one direction, coming from Israel and what Israel’s “needs” might be. She is not alone in making that type of assessment. She seems ignorant of the fact that an Israeli bombing attack on Iran would have to cross Iraq, where the airspace is controlled by the United States. The Pentagon can tell Israel flatly that it will use whatever force is necessary to stop an Israeli overflight knowing that if the US were to permit the attack it would be an accomplice to it, virtually requiring the Iranians to retaliate and drawing Washington into the war whether it wanted to be there or not.
And if there remained any uncertainty about what to do about Iran after the Applebaum op-ed, the Post used the same page in the same edition of the paper for an additional article by Richard Cohen making pretty much the same points as Applebaum about those awful Iranians, ”Fight crazy with crazy.” Cohen takes pains to ridicule any suggestion that the US might be tempted to use force to deter an Israeli attack on Iran, characteristically opining that we might thereby “Shoot our friends to defend our enemies.” Cohen and Applebaum together make the case that preemptive war against Iran is somehow both justifiable and inevitable, ignoring the fact that Iran has never threatened the United States. Their Israel-centric view makes it appear completely acceptable for Washington to yet again go to war on behalf of Tel Aviv.
Well it all comes together neatly, doesn’t it? Those Iranians are well outside the pale and always will be, Cohen calling Ahmadinejad a Hitler come to earth again, and it is downright churlish of anyone to even suggest that we Americans might well have a national interest differing from that of Israel. How dare one express concern that the United States might be badly damaged if Tel Aviv starts another war in a deliberate attempt to “Wag the Dog?” But if there is a contrary view to Applebaum and Cohen you won’t find it in the Washington Post unless you take the time to review the hundreds of comments posted on both articles, which are almost all hostile if one weeds out the syntactically challenged cheerleading entries inserted by the industrious drones at the Israel Foreign Ministry. A number of bloggers not surprisingly describe Cohen and Applebaum as Israel-firsters. To be sure, the United States national interest as it relates to the Middle East quagmire would appear to be of no concern to Fred Hiatt and the others who manage the Post’s editorial and op-ed pages.
Read more by Philip Giraldi
- What’s In a Name? – February 24th, 2010
- Some Straight Thinking About Iran – February 17th, 2010
- Civis Romanus Sum – February 12th, 2010
- Onward Christian Soldiers, Again – February 3rd, 2010
- Stealing Success Tel Aviv Style – January 27th, 2010
Help Kucinich Use War Powers Act to Force Afghanistan Debate
Help Kucinich Use War Powers Act to Force Afghanistan Debate
http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/161/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=2449
US Israel Policy got us into Afghanistan
http://america-hijacked.com/2010/02/17/us-israel-policy-got-us-into-afghanistan/