Archive for July 10th, 2010

Prof. Mearsheimer: No accountability for Israel on any issue!

Prof. Mearsheimer: No accountability for Israel on any issue!

Saturday, July 10, 2010 11:01 PM
From: “maidhc ocathail”
On July 7, 2010, at “The Spy Museum,” in Washington, D.C., the IRmep sponsored a panel discussion. It was titled: “Israel’s Nuclear Arsenal: Espionage, Opacity and Future.” One of the panelists was Professor John J. Mearsheimer, the co-author of “The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy. He is also a graduate of the U.S. Military Academy at West Point. Professor Mearsheimer said: “There is no accountability for Israel on any issue!” He referenced Israel’s attack on the USS Liberty, the killing of peace and justice activist Rachel Corrie, and Israel’s recent assault on the Gaza Freedom Flotilla. For background on this event and its sponsor, The Institute for Research: Middle Eastern Policy, go to: To view Professor Mearsheimer’s full remarks of 25 minutes, 47 seconds, go to:

Does U.S. Support for Israel Threaten American Safety?

Does U.S. Support for Israel Threaten American Safety?

 The above article was mentioned in the following interview with Phil Weiss which aired earlier today:
Phil Weiss was on Antiwar Radio talking about Petraeus and neocon Max Boot scheming:
US support for Israel’s brutal oppression of the Palestinians got US tragically attacked at the World Trade Center on 9/11 and earlier at the World Trade Center in 1993 as well (look up ‘Israel as a terrorist’s motivation’ in the index of James Bamford’s ‘A Pretext for War’ book):
What Motivated the 9/11 Hijackers? See Testimony Most Didn’t:

Petraeus Kneels, Kisses Neocon Boot

Petraeus Kneels, Kisses Neocon Boot

Philip Weiss on the shame and humiliation

The following article was mentioned in the above interview with Phil Weiss:

Does U.S. Support for Israel Threaten American Safety?

The following interview with Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson (Colin Powell’s former assistant) was mentioned as well in the above linked interview with Phil Weiss:

Stirrings of a New Push for Military Option on Iran

Stirrings of a New Push for Military Option on Iran


Posted By Jim Lobe On July 9, 2010 @ 11:00 pm

“From a marketing point of view, you don’t introduce new products in August,” explained then-White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card back in September 2002, in answer to queries about why the administration of George W. Bush had not launched its campaign to rally public opinion behind invading Iraq earlier in the summer.

And while it’s only July — and less than a month after the U.N., the European Union (EU) and the U.S. Congress approved new economic sanctions against Iran — a familiar clutch of Iraq war hawks appear to be preparing the ground for a major new campaign to rally public opinion behind military action against the Islamic Republic. 

Barring an unexpected breakthrough on the diplomatic front, that campaign, like the one eight years ago, is likely to move into high gear this autumn, beginning shortly after the Labor Day holiday, Sep. 6, that marks the end of summer vacation. 

By the following week, the November mid-term election campaign will be in full swing, and Republican candidates are expected to make the charge that Democrats and President Barack Obama are “soft on Iran” their top foreign policy issue. 

In any event, veterans of the Bush administration’s pre-Iraq invasion propaganda offensive are clearly mobilizing their arguments for a similar effort on Iran, even suggesting that the timetable between campaign launch and possible military action — a mere six months in Iraq’s case — could be appropriate. 

“By the first quarter of 2011, we will know whether sanctions are proving effective,” wrote Bush’s former national security adviser, Stephen Hadley, and Israeli Brig. Gen. Michael Herzog in a paper published last week by the Washington Institute for Near Policy (WINEP), a think tank closely tied to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). 

“(T)he administration should begin to plan now for a course of action should sanctions be deemed ineffective by the first or second quarter of next year. The military option must be kept on the table both as a means of strengthening diplomacy and as a worst-case scenario,” they asserted. 

While Hadley and Herzog argued that the administration should begin planning military options now – presumably to be ready for possible action as early as next spring – others are calling for more urgent and demonstrative preparations. 

”We cannot afford to wait indefinitely to determine the effectiveness of diplomacy and sanctions,” wrote former Democratic Sen. Charles Robb and Air Force Gen. Charles Wald (ret.) in a column published in Friday’s Washington Post in which they warned that Tehran “could achieve nuclear weapons capability before the end of this year, posing a strategically untenable threat to the United States.” 

“If diplomatic and economic pressures do not compel Iran to terminate its nuclear program, the U.S. military has the capability and is prepared to launch an effective, targeted strike on Tehran’s nuclear and military facilities,” they wrote. 

Their column was based on the latest of three reports promoting the use of military pressure on Iran released by the Bipartisan Policy Center (BPC) since 2008 and overseen by BPC’s neo-conservative foreign policy director, Michael Makovsky. 

Makovsky, whose brother is a senior official at WINEP, served as a consultant to the controversial Pentagon office set up in the run-up to the Iraq War to find evidence of operational ties between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein as a justification for the invasion. 

The BPC report, “Meeting the Challenge: When Time Runs Out,” urged the Obama administration, among other immediate steps, to “augment the Fifth Fleet presence in the Persian Gulf and Gulf of Oman, including the deployment of an additional (aircraft) carrier battle group and minesweepers to the waters off Iran; conduct broad exercises with its allies in the Persian Gulf; …initiate a ‘strategic partnership’ with Azerbaijan to enhance regional access…” as a way of demonstrating Washington’s readiness to go to war. 

“If such pressure fails to persuade Iran’s leadership, the United States and its allies would have no choice but to consider blockading refined petroleum imports into Iran,” it went on, noting that such a step would “effectively be an act of war and the U.S. and its allies would have to prepare for its consequences.”

Of course, some Iraq hawks, most aggressively Bush’s former U.N. ambassador John Bolton, have insisted that neither diplomacy nor sanctions, no matter how tough, would be sufficient to dissuade Tehran from acquiring a nuclear weapons and that military action — preferably by the U.S., but, if not, by Israel — would be necessary, and sooner rather than later. 

Since the Jun. 12, 2009 disputed elections and the emergence of the opposition Green Movement in Iran, a few neo- conservatives, notably Michael Rubin of the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) and Michael Ledeen of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD), have argued that a military attack could prove counter-productive by rallying an otherwise discontented — and possibly rebellious — population behind the regime. 

But with the Green Movement seemingly unable to challenge the government in the streets that argument has been losing ground among the hawks who, in any event, blame the opposition’s alleged weakness on Obama’s failure to provide it with more support. 

“Unfortunately, President Obama waffled while innocent Iranians were killed by their own government,” wrote William Kristol and Jamie Fly, in Kristol’s Weekly Standard last month. 

“It’s now increasingly clear that the credible threat of a military strike against Iran’s nuclear program is the only action that could convince the regime to curtail its ambition,” wrote the two men, who direct the Foreign Policy Initiative (FPI), the successor organization of the neoconservative-led Project for the New American Century (PNAC) that played a key role in preparing the ground for the Iraq invasion. 

Neoconservative and other hawks have also pounced on reported remarks by United Arab Emirates (UAE) Amb. Yousef al-Otaiba, at a retreat sponsored by The Atlantic magazine in Colorado this week to nullify another obstacle to military action – the widespread belief that Washington’s Arab allies oppose a military attack on Iran by the U.S. or Israel as too risky for their own security and regional stability. 

“We cannot live with a nuclear Iran,” Otaiba was quoted as saying in a Washington Times article by Eli Lake, a prominent neo-conservative journalist. 

“Mr. Otaiba’s …comments leave no doubt what he and most Arab officials think about the prospect of a nuclear revolutionary Shi’ite state,” the Wall Street Journal‘s editorial board, a major media champion of the Iraq War, opined. “They desperately want someone, and that means the U.S. or Israel, to stop it, using force if need be.”

Otaiba was interviewed at the conference by The Atlantic‘s Jeffrey Goldberg, an influential U.S.-Israeli writer who in a widely noted essay published by the New Yorker magazine in 2002 claimed that Hussein was supporting an al-Qaeda group in Kurdistan and that the Iraqi leader would soon possess nuclear weapons. 

Goldberg, who asserted in his blog this week that “the idea of a group of Persian Shi’ites having possession of a nuclear bomb …certainly scares [Arab leaders] more than the reality of the Jewish bomb,” is reportedly working on an essay on the necessity of attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities for publication by The Atlantic in September.

(Inter Press Service)

Read more by Jim Lobe

Article printed from Original:

URL to article:

‘US will attack Iran (for Israel!) if it must’

'US will attack Iran if it must'
Photo by: Ariel Hermoni, Defense Ministry

‘US will attack Iran if it must’

07/07/2010 12:11

Senators in Jerusalem to discuss Middle East tensions.

Talkbacks (41)


There is wide support in Congress for using all means to keep Iran from becoming a nuclear power, “through diplomatic and economic sanctions if we possibly can, through military actions if we must,” visiting US Senator Joe Lieberman (I-CT) said Wednesday in Jerusalem.

Lieberman, flanked at a Jerusalem press conference by his senate colleagues John McCain (R-AZ) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC), used very tough language, saying the words “military action” in regards to stopping Iran’s nuclear program. Most US officials opt to tiptoe around the subject, saying “no options are off the table.”

Lieberman said that “a certain trumpet needs to sounded here for the Iranian regime to hear.”

He said the sanctions Congress recently passed against Iran were meant to signal to Teheran to “negotiate the end of their nuclear program and re-entry into the civilized world, if that is possible. But if not, they should know that when Congress says it is unacceptable to get nuclear weapons, we mean it. We hope economic and diplomatic power will work, but if we must use force, that must remain a very active option.”

Regarding Tuesday’s friendly meeting in Washington between Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and US President Barack Obama, Lieberman – based on reports he heard from people there – said “it was a positive meeting, and we can say with some encouragement that the relationship between the US and Israel is back on track.”

Lieberman, acknowledging that the past year was a “difficult one” in the US-Israel relationship, said that even during this period “the members of Congress across party lines continued to both feel and express strong support for the security of the State of Israel, and for the relationship.”

Graham was even blunter.

“The Congress has Israel’s back,” he said, “and never misunderstand that. Whatever relationship problems we have had in the past, it has never seeped over into Congress. The Congress has been united in protection of one of our best allies in the world, the State of Israel.”

Regarding another American ally, Turkey, McCain – referring to both Ankara’s vote against Iran sanctions at the UN and its hostile rhetoric toward Israel – said he has been “disappointed recently” by Turkey’s “actions and words.”

At the same time, he said, Turkey is an old and close ally with whom the US has common interests.

“I hope that at some point the Turkish leadership would lower the rhetoric, reduce it to the point where we can try to solve differences in a quiet and diplomatic way,” McCain said.

Asked what would happen to US-Turkish ties if Ankara severed, as it has threatened to do, its ties with Israel, McCain replied, “obviously it wouldn’t be helpful. I hope this won’t be the case. I hope that there will be conversations.” Saying that the Israeli-Turkish relationship has “contributed to stability in the Middle East,” McCain said he found the situation “disturbing,” and said he hoped the US could play an “interlocutor role to bridge some of these differences.”

Fundamentally, McCain said, Turkey remains a secular nation that has “contributed enormously to peace in the region and the world.”

All three senators, who met during their two-day stay with Defense Minister Ehud Barak and Chief of General Staff Lt.-Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi, as well as with Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Salam Fayyad, praised the US-trained PA security forces.

McCain, in an apparent reference to talk about putting PA security forces at border crossings from Israel into Gaza, said the willingness of Israel to discuss this issue showed the confidence Israel had in these forces as well.