Intelligence professionals warn Israeli attack on Iran would drag US into war

Subject: Intelligence professionals warn Israeli attack on Iran would drag US into war

 

Council for the National Interest Foundation

Dear Friends,

We have disturbing and urgent news. Our new executive director, Philip Giraldi, and other former U.S. intelligence officers have just published an extremely important analysis warning that Israel may plan to attack Iran as early as this month (full-length article below).

They detail the evidence for this possibility and warn that such an action would quite likely drag the United States into yet another tragic, needless, and disastrous quagmire.  It would be a war that Israel would begin and the United States would have to finish.

Fortunately, they also describe actions that President Obama could take to prevent this.

1. We urge you to circulate this information widely.

2. Also, please contact the White House and your Congressional representatives to tell them that you do not want another costly and profoundly tragic war. Explain that you desire that the U.S. issue a clear demand that Israel NOT attack Iran and instead allow the various excellent diplomatic initiatives to defuse the situation to move forward.

Our radio program “CNI: Jerusalem Calling” tomorrow at noon eastern time will discuss this topic. CNI President Alison Weir will be the host with Executive Director Philip Giraldi and CIA intelligence officer Raymond McGovern as the guests. Mr. McGovern served as an intelligence officer in the CIA for almost thirty years and prepared the President’s Daily Brief during both the Reagan administration and the first Bush administration. He has also published a number of articles and is one of the founding members of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS), a group of former and current officials in the intelligence community that got together in 2003 to protest the use of faulty intelligence leading up to the Iraq War.

To listen:

go to the show’s homepage and click on the “Listen Live” button for Studio A, at the top left.

Call in:

with your questions and comments during the second half of the show by calling 877-474-3302, toll-free

International users can call 858-678-8958 or Skypename: WSRADIOSTUDIO.

You can also check out archived editions of our show by going to the “CNI: Jerusalem Calling” archives. Past shows include conversations with Gideon Levy, Stephen Walt, Mustafa Barghouti, Rashid Khalidi, Jeffrey Blankfort, Noam Chomsky… and many more.

“CNI: Jerusalem Calling” is a project of the Council for the National Interest Foundation. You can help support the radio show’s continued efforts to educate Americans on how current policies harm the American national interest by making a tax-deductible contribution to CNI Foundation and clicking here.

Below is the article, by Ray McGovern:

MEMORANDUM FOR: The President 
FROM: Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS)
SUBJECT: War With Iran

We write to alert you to the likelihood that Israel will attack Iran as early as this month. This would likely lead to a wider war. Israel’s leaders would calculate that once the battle is joined, it will be politically untenable for you to give anything less than unstinting support to Israel, no matter how the war started, and that U.S. troops and weaponry would flow freely. Wider war could eventually result in destruction of the state of Israel. This can be stopped, but only if you move quickly to preempt an Israeli attack by publicly condemning such a move before it happens.

We believe that comments by senior American officials, you included, reflect misplaced trust in Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu. Actually, the phrasing itself can be revealing, as when CIA Director Panetta implied cavalierly that Washington leaves it up to the Israelis to decide whether and when to attack Iran, and how much “room” to give to the diplomatic effort. On June 27, Panetta casually told ABC’s Jake Tapper, “I think they are willing to give us the room to be able to try to change Iran diplomatically … as opposed to changing them militarily.”

Similarly, the tone you struck referring to Netanyahu and yourself in your July 7 interview with Israeli TV was distinctly out of tune with decades of unfortunate history with Israeli leaders. “Neither of us try to surprise each other,” you said, “and that approach is one that I think Prime Minister Netanyahu is committed to.” You may wish to ask Vice President Biden to remind you of the kind of surprises he has encountered in Israel.

Blindsiding has long been an arrow in Israel’s quiver. During the emerging Middle East crisis in the spring of 1967, some of us witnessed closely a flood of Israeli surprises and deception, as Netanyahu’s predecessors feigned fear of an imminent Arab attack as justification for starting a war to seize and occupy Arab territories. We had long since concluded that Israel had been exaggerating the Arab “threat”- well before 1982 when former Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin publicly confessed:

“In June 1967, we had a choice. The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that [Egyptian President] Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him.”

Israel had, in fact, prepared well militarily and also mounted provocations against its neighbors, in order to provoke a response that could be used to justify expansion of its borders.

Given this record, one would be well advised to greet with appropriate skepticism any private assurances Netanyahu may have given you that Israel would not surprise you with an attack on Iran.

Netanyahu’s Calculations

Netanyahu believes he holds the high cards, largely because of the strong support he enjoys in our Congress and our strongly pro-Israel media. He reads your reluctance even to mention in controversial bilateral issues publicly during his recent visit as affirmation that he is in the catbird seat in the relationship. During election years in the U.S. (including mid-terms), Israeli leaders are particularly confident of the power they and the Likud Lobby enjoy on the American political scene. 

This prime minister learned well from Menachem Begin and Ariel Sharon. Netanyahu’s attitude comes through in a video taped nine years ago and shown on Israeli TV, in which he bragged about how he deceived President Clinton into believing he (Netanyahu) was helping implement the Oslo accords when he was actually destroying them. The tape displays a contemptuous attitude toward – and wonderment at – an America so easily influenced by Israel. Netanyahu says:

“America is something that can be easily moved. Moved in the right direction. … They won’t get in our way. … Eighty percent of the Americans support us. It’s absurd.”

Israeli columnist Gideon Levy wrote that the video shows Netanyahu to be “a con artist … who thinks that Washington is in his pocket and that he can pull the wool over its eyes,” adding that such behavior “does not change over the years.” As mentioned above, Netanyahu has had instructive role models. None other than Gen. Brent Scowcroft told the Financial Times that former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon had George W. Bush “mesmerized,” that “Sharon just has him “wrapped around his little finger.” (Scowcroft was promptly relieved of his duties as chair of the prestigious President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board and told never again to darken the White House doorstep.)

If further proof of American political support for Netanyahu were needed, it was manifest when Senators McCain, Lieberman, and Graham visited Israel during the second week of July. Lieberman asserted that there is wide support in Congress for using all means to keep Iran from becoming a nuclear power, including “through military actions if we must.”  Graham was equally explicit: “The Congress has Israel’s back,” he said. More recently, 47 House Republicans have signed onto H.R. 1553 declaring “support for Israel’s right to use all means necessary to confront and eliminate nuclear threats posed by Iran … including the use of military force.” 

The power of the Likud Lobby, especially in an election year, facilitates Netanyahu’s attempts to convince those few of his colleagues who need convincing that there may never be a more auspicious time to bring about “regime change” in Tehran. And, as we hope your advisers have told you, regime change, not Iranian nuclear weapons, is Israel’s primary concern.

If Israel’s professed fear that one or two nuclear weapons in Iran’s arsenal would be a game changer, one would have expected Israeli leaders to jump with up and down with glee at the possibility of seeing half of Iran’s low enriched uranium shipped abroad. Instead, they dismissed as a “trick” the tripartite deal, brokered by Turkey and Brazil with your personal encouragement, that would ship half of Iran’s low enriched uranium outside Tehran’s control.

The National Intelligence Estimate

The Israelis have been looking on intently as the U.S. intelligence community attempts to update, in a “Memorandum to Holders” of the NIE of November 2007 on Iran’s nuclear program. It is worth recalling a couple of that Estimate’s key judgments:

“We judge with high confidence that in fall of 2003 Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program. … We assess with moderate confidence Tehran has not restarted its nuclear program as of mid-2007, but we do not know whether it currently intends to develop nuclear weapons….”

Earlier this year, public congressional testimony by former Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair (February 1 and 2) and Defense Intelligence Agency Director Gen. Ronald Burgess with Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Gen. James Cartwright (April 14) did not alter those key judgments. Blair and others continued to underscore the intelligence community’s agnosticism on one key point: as Blair put it earlier this year, “We do not know if Iran will eventually decide to build a nuclear weapon.” 

The media have reported off-the-cuff comments by Panetta and by you, with a darker appraisal – with you telling Israeli TV, “all indicators are that they [the Iranians] are in fact pursuing a nuclear weapon,” and Panetta telling ABC, “I think they continue to work on designs in that area [of weaponization].” Panetta hastened to add, though, that in Tehran, “There is a continuing debate right now as to whether or not they ought to proceed with the bomb.”

Israel probably believes it must give more weight to the official testimony of Blair, Burgess, and Cartwright, which dovetail with the earlier NIE, and the Israelis are afraid that the long-delayed Memorandum to Holders of the 2007 NIE will essentially affirm that Estimate’s key judgments. Our sources tell us that an honest Memorandum to Holders is likely to do precisely that, and that they suspect that the several-months-long delay means intelligence judgments are being “fixed” around the policy – as was the case before the attack on Iraq.

One War Prevented

The key judgments of the November 2007 NIE shoved an iron rod into the wheel spokes of the Dick Cheney-led juggernaut rolling toward war on Iran. The NIE infuriated Israel leaders eager to attack before President Bush and Cheney left office. This time, Netanyahu fears that issuance of an honest Memorandum might have a similar effect.

Bottom line: more incentive for Israel to preempt such an Estimate by striking Iran sooner rather than later. 

Last week’s announcement that U.S. officials will meet next month with Iranian counterparts to resume talks on ways to arrange higher enrichment of Iranian low-enriched uranium (LEU) for Tehran’s medical research reactor was welcome news to all but the Israeli leaders. In addition, Iran reportedly has said it would be prepared to halt enrichment to 20 percent (the level needed for the medical research reactor) and has made it clear that it looks forward to the resumption of talks. 

Again, an agreement that would send a large portion of Iran’s LEU abroad would, at a minimum, hinder progress toward nuclear weapons, should Iran decide to develop them. But it would also greatly weaken Israel’s scariest rationale for an attack on Iran. Bottom line: with the talks on what Israel’s leaders earlier labeled a “trick” now scheduled to resume in September, incentive builds in Tel Aviv for the Israelis to attack before any such agreement can be reached. We’ll say it again: the objective is regime change. Creating synthetic fear of Iranian nuclear weapons is simply the best way to “justify” bringing about regime change. Worked well for Iraq, no? 

Another War in Need of Prevention
 
A strong public statement by you, personally warning Israel not to attack Iran, would most probably head off such an Israeli move. Follow-up might include dispatching Adm. Mullen to Tel Aviv with military-to-military instructions to Israel: Don’t even think of it.

In the wake of the 2007 NIE, President Bush overruled Vice President Cheney and sent Adm. Mullen to Israel to impart that hard message. A much-relieved Mullen arrived home that spring sure of step and grateful that he had dodged the likelihood of being on the end of a Cheney-inspired order for him to send U.S. forces into war with Iran.

This time around, Mullen returned with sweaty palms from a visit to Israel in February 2010. Ever since, he has been worrying aloud that Israel might mousetrap the U.S. into war with Iran, while adding the obligatory assurance that the Pentagon does have an attack plan for Iran, if needed. In contrast to his experience in 2008, though, Mullen seemed troubled that Israel’s leaders did not take his warnings seriously.

While in Israel, Mullen insisted publicly that an attack on Iran would be “a big, big, big problem for all of us, and I worry a great deal about the unintended consequences.”

After his return, at a Pentagon press conference on Feb. 22 Mullen drove home the same point. After reciting the usual boilerplate about Iran being “on the path to achieve nuclear weaponization” and its “desire to dominate its neighbors,” he included the following in his prepared remarks:

“For now, the diplomatic and the economic levers of international power are and ought to be the levers first pulled. Indeed, I would hope they are always and consistently pulled. No strike, however effective, will be, in and of itself, decisive.”

Unlike younger generals – David Petraeus, for example – Adm. Mullen served in the Vietnam War. That experience is probably what prompts asides like this: “I would remind everyone of an essential truth: War is bloody and uneven. It’s messy and ugly and incredibly wasteful….” Although the immediate context for that remark was Afghanistan, Mullen has underscored time and again that war with Iran would be a far larger disaster. Those with a modicum of familiarity with the military, strategic, and economic equities at stake know he is right.

Other Steps

In 2008, after Mullen read the Israelis the riot act, they put their preemptive plans for Iran aside. With that mission accomplished, Mullen gave serious thought to ways to prevent any unintended (or, for that matter, deliberately provoked) incidents in the crowded Persian Gulf that could lead to wider hostilities.

Mullen sent up an interesting trial balloon at a July 2, 2008, press conference, when he indicated that military-to-military dialogue could “add to a better understanding” between the U.S. and Iran. But nothing more was heard of this overture, probably because Cheney ordered him to drop it.

It was a good idea – still is. The danger of a U.S.-Iranian confrontation in the crowded Persian Gulf has not been addressed, and should be. Establishment of a direct communications link between top military officials in Washington and Tehran would reduce the danger of an accident, miscalculation, or covert, false-flag attack. 

In our view, that should be done immediately – particularly since recently introduced sanctions assert a right to inspect Iranian ships. The naval commander of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards reportedly has threatened “a response in the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz” if anyone tries to inspect Iranian ships in international waters.

Another safety valve would result from successful negotiation of the kind of bilateral “incidents-at-sea” protocol that was concluded with the Russians in 1972 during a period of relatively high tension.

With only interim nobodies at the helm of the intelligence community, you may wish to consider knocking some heads together yourself and insisting that it finish an honest Memorandum to Holders of the 2007 NIE by mid-August – recording any dissents, as necessary. Sadly, our former colleagues tell us that politicization of intelligence analysis did not end with the departure of Bush and Cheney… and that the problem is acute even at the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research, which in the past has done some of the best professional, objective, tell-it-like-it-is analysis.

Pundits, Think-Tanks: Missing the Point

As you may have noticed, most of page one of Sunday’s Washington Post Outlook section was given to an article titled, “A Nuclear Iran: Would America Strike to Prevent It?  –  Imagining Obama’s Response to an Iranian Missile Crisis.” Page five was dominated by the rest of the article, under the title “Who will blink first when Iran is on the brink?” A page-wide photo of a missile rolling past Iranian dignitaries on a reviewing stand (reminiscent of the familiar parades on Red Square) is aimed at the centerfold of the Outlook section, as if poised to blow it to smithereens.

Typically, the authors address the Iranian “threat” as though it endangers the U.S., even though Secretary Clinton has stated publicly that this is not the case. They write that one option for the U.S. is “the lonely, unpopular path of taking military action lacking allied consensus.” O Tempora, O Mores! In less than a decade, wars of aggression have become nothing more than lonely, unpopular paths.

What is perhaps most remarkable, though, is that the word Israel is nowhere to be found in this very long article. Similar think pieces, including some from relatively progressive think-tanks, also address these issues as though they were simply bilateral U.S.-Iranian problems, with little or no attention to Israel.

Guns of August?

The stakes could hardly be higher. Letting slip the dogs of war would have immense repercussions. Again, we hope that Adm. Mullen and others have given you comprehensive briefings on them. Netanyahu would be taking a fateful gamble by attacking Iran, with high risk to everyone involved. The worst, but conceivable case, has Netanyahu playing – unintentionally – Dr. Kevorkian to the state of Israel.

Even if the U.S. were to be sucked into a war provoked by Israel, there is absolutely no guarantee that the war would come out well. Were the U.S. to suffer significant casualties, and were Americans to become aware that such losses came about because of exaggerated Israeli claims of a nuclear threat from Iran, Israel could lose much of its high standing in the United States. There could even be a surge in anti-Semitism, as Americans conclude that officials with dual loyalties in Congress and the executive branch threw our troops into a war provoked, on false pretenses, by Likudniks for their own narrow purposes. We do not have a sense that major players in Tel Aviv or in Washington are sufficiently sensitive to these critical factors. 

You are in position to prevent this unfortunate but likely chain reaction. We allow for the possibility that Israeli military action might not lead to a major regional war, but we consider the chances of that much less than even.

Footnote: VIPS Experience

We VIPS have found ourselves in this position before. We prepared our first Memorandum for the President on the afternoon of Feb. 5, 2003, after Colin Powell’s speech at the UN. We had been watching how our profession was being corrupted into serving up faux intelligence that was later criticized (correctly) as “uncorroborated, contradicted, and nonexistent” – adjectives used by former Senate Intelligence Committee chair Jay Rockefeller after a five-year investigation by his committee. As Powell spoke, we decided collectively that the responsible thing to do was to try to warn the president before he acted on misguided advice to attack Iraq. Unlike Powell, we did not claim that our analysis was “irrefutable and undeniable.” We did conclude with this warning [.pdf]:

“After watching Secretary Powell today, we are convinced that you would be well served if you widened the discussion … beyond the circle of those advisers clearly bent on a war for which we see no compelling reason and from which we believe the unintended consequences are likely to be catastrophic.” 

We take no satisfaction at having gotten it right on Iraq. Others with claim to more immediate expertise on Iraq were issuing similar warnings. But we were kept well away from the wagons circled by Bush and Cheney. Sadly, your own vice president, who was then chair of the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee, was among the most assiduous in blocking opportunities for dissenting voices to be heard. This is part of what brought on the worst foreign policy disaster in our nation’s history. 

We now believe that we may also be right on (and right on the cusp of) another impending catastrophe of even wider scope – Iran – on which another president, you, are not getting good advice from your closed circle of advisers.

They are probably telling you that, since you have privately counseled Prime Minister Netanyahu against attacking Iran, he will not do it. This could simply be the familiar syndrome of telling the president what they believe he wants to hear. Quiz them; tell them others believe them to be dead wrong on Netanyahu. The only positive here is that you – only you – can prevent an Israeli attack on Iran.

Steering Group, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS)
 
Phil Giraldi, directorate of operations, CIA (20 years) 

Larry Johnson, directorate of intelligence, CIA; Department of State, Department of Defense consultant (24 years) 

W. Patrick Lang, colonel, USA, Special Forces (ret.); Senior Executive Service: defense intelligence officer for Middle East/South Asia; director of HUMINT Collection, Defense Intelligence Agency (30 years) 

Ray McGovern, U.S. Army intelligence officer; directorate of intelligence, CIA (30 years)

Coleen Rowley, special agent and Minneapolis division counsel, FBI (24 years)

Ann Wright, colonel, U.S. Army Reserve (ret.), (29 years); Foreign Service officer, Department of State (16 years)


 

 

Click here to make a tax-deductible donation to the CNI Foundation:
Donate to the CNI Foundation
https://secure.groundspring.org/dn/index.php?aid=2836

Council for the National Interest Foundation
1250 4th Street SW, Suite WG-1 · Washington, DC 20024
800.296.6958 · 202.863.2951 · Fax: 202.863.2952
http://www.cnionline.org/

 

131 Responses to “Intelligence professionals warn Israeli attack on Iran would drag US into war”

  • Patriot says:

    USA won the cold war but is turning into USSR:

    http://yhoo.it/aitFu3

  • percy says:

    IF, A BIG IF, we all make it perfectly clear that we KNOW who our real enemy is and that we will refuse to fight anyone else except the real enemy, then maybe they will reconsider since we know exactly who is doing what to whom.

    We know any, I mean any false flag will be Israel. Only Israel had wontanly killed Americans without batting an eyelash. They have killed more Americans than “ALL THE MUSLIM NATIONS PUT TOGETHER OVER THE PAST 30 YEARS”, and are continuing to threaten and kill our citizens and leaders even today.

    If there is a third world war, we begin right here at home and go to war against the khazars causing it and no one else. That is where we must let them know we are willing to go.

  • We (USA) is already in a quagmire with “Israel”. Not counting the enormous sums of money we send them, our reputation with the Arabs and the rest of the world sullied, we continue to let Israel drag us down. When will we wake up?!

  • Cat Callahan says:

    People wake up! Bottom line? Do you want a Depression? Something Worse than is going on right now? Maybe you want to trade your mobile home or one bedroom apartment for a tent? And see your kids starve to death while the Jewish Zionist bastards feast on Filet Mignon and Cavier on Wall Street? JEWS are EVIL! Jesus called them the “Synagogue of Satan” and not only that, but read the Talmud! They consider Goyim(thats us) Less than human and expendable! The Jews in Israhell today are not the true Judeans. The Palestinians actually fit that bill better! The Zionist Jews are athiests, satanists, and Ashkenazis-go look it up! They are under orders to destroy the US! And you play right into their hands! They plan to destroy the American family-most Jews are fagots! They want to make us all homosexual like the Rockefuckers-er, I mean Rockefellers! Wake up before it is too late! The Muslim religion is actually more like us and they acknowledge Jesus and do not say he is ” in hell boiling in excrement!”(See the Talmud!)

  • Patriot says:

    Take a look at the 5:55 minute/second mark of the second part at the following URL about boarding Iranian ships next month in accordance with what AIPAC pushed through the Congress!

    http://maxkeiser.com/2010/08/22/ote69-on-the-edge-with-gerald-celente-20-august-2010/

  • Patriot says:

    Will US Navy board Iranian ships for AIPAC/Israel next month?!

    http://tinyurl.com/USNavytoboardIranianships

  • Rolando t. Roman says:

    We all know who is the big bad wolf here. America knows, so Israel quit pissing and moaning. Leave Iran alone…Israel propaganda aint gonna work no more..The whole world knows.

  • Patriot says:

    ISRAEL ORDERS MASSIVE MILITARY FUEL STOCKS FAR IN EXCESS OF THAT REQUIRED FOR NORMAL OPERATIONS

    http://lataan.blogspot.com/2010/08/israel-orders-massive-military-fuel.html

    http://bit.ly/dgHGRg

    Israel going back into Lebanon would be in accordance with the rest of the ‘A Clean Break’ agenda – see http://tinyurl.com/cleanbreak if interested further

    Israel planning to attack Hezbollah arms depots in Syria

    http://tinyurl.com/IsraelplanningtoattackSyria

  • Patriot says:

    IRmep’s Grant F. Smith and Scott Horton of ANTIWAR Radio discuss documents released from the Senate investigation of Israel’s covert lobbying and PR campaigns, threats to the continued freedom to practice (out of favor) religions in America, how neocons use their unchallenged talking points in mainstream media to push for war with Iran, the Atlantic magazine’s history of promoting Israeli policy objectives and how AIPAC wields power by withholding campaign contributions to wayward politicians.

    Website: http://antiwar.com/radio/2010/08/25/grant-f-smith-10/

    Audio dowload: http://dissentradio.com/radio/10_08_23_smith_donate.mp3

  • Patriot says:

    http://www.israelshamir.net/English/Fear_Not.htm

    Fear of war is not the best adviser. If they want war, give them a war. At home!

    Fear Not

    By Israel Shamir

    1. Crying Wolf

    So many people have circulated so many warnings of the forthcoming US-Israeli attack on Iran that it is hard to ignore them. A piece written by a few ex-spooks warning of a new round of war is one of these messages. In our view, spooks, ex or not, are not the most reliable people, and the CIA is not the best reference. However, this item fits with the dire predictions of Fidel Castro. It fits with the recent heating up of the Gaza and Lebanon borders. It fits with the relocation of some American warships and accompanying Israeli U-boats to the shores of Iran. Rumours of Israeli advance forces being placed in Azerbaijan and even Saudi Arabia are used as supportive evidence. The Lobby’s agents relentlessly call for war. They blackmail America, saying: if Obama will not attack, Netanyahu will, and the US will anyway be forced to fight. This is the bottom line of Jeffrey Goldberg’s long piece in the Atlantic magazine..

    On the other hand, we have heard the cry “wolf” so many times from so many people that now we are perfectly blasé. For quite a few years now, hardly a month has gone by without a serious warning of an impending attack on Iran.

    Though these warnings are usually sounded by friends, they do serve the enemy as well. They amount to psychological pressure on Iran. For this reason alone I am ready to bet: there will be no attack on Iran. Israel has never gone to war without its centre-left parties in the government. So as long as Israeli government includes only right and far-right parties, no war is foreseeable. It would be like driving without insurance. (Ehud Barak’s Labour Party is too weak to count. If Tsipi Livni should join the government – run for cover, but not until then.)

    I am amazed by the strong nerves of President Ahmadinejad: a weaker person in his place might flinch and pre-empt the imminent attack. He does not – apparently he thinks that the jaw-jaw is not likely to become war-war. This is also the view of the well-informed Egyptian newspaper Al Ahram: The current escalation of US and Israeli sabre-rattling against Iran is probably no more than that, writes Amani Maged.

    The main reason: there is no love lost between Obama and Netanyahu. They do not trust one other. In Israel there is a hidden fear that should Netanyahu follow Goldberg’s advice, the US president will not rush in to save and defend it. Obama certainly did not promise he would help in case of Israeli aggression; and he has no knee-jerk instinct to defend Tel Aviv come what may. 90% of Israeli Jews dislike him; he is hated by right-wing American Jews – “friends of Israel.” A year ago, after his Cairo speech, there was a universal feeling that Obama’s administration will not chop wood and draw water for Israel.

    Now this illusion of America’s independence is gone. Israelis are notorious for their “kiss and tell” indiscretion (“larutz lesaper lehevre”, in Hebrew). A confidante of Netanyahu, Ari Shavit, has told us that “the Israeli leader applied hidden pressure to the American leader,” which made him fall to his knees and beg for mercy. The name of the “hidden pressure” could be a Jewish billionaire from Chicago, one Lester Crown, who “made Obama” and supposedly retains full control over his creature, or alternatively, another Jewish Chicagoan named Marty Nesbitt. However, even if the US President was forced by his Jewish benefactors to do a volte-face, he certainly bears a grudge for this humiliating turn.

    The worst-case scenario as seen from Israel unrolls as follows: Netanyahu mistakes the vague remarks of Obama for an iron-clad promise, and launches an attack. Then Obama sits tight while Israel bleeds under the Iranian response. Israelis remember that this was the US tactic for dealing with Saddam Hussein: this best friend of America and recipient of US military aid was led to believe that Washington would permit the takeover of Kuwait.

    The most likely interpretation for all the sabre-rattling is that Israelis plan yet another invasion of Lebanon, while hoping that Iran will be scared into immobility by the threat of an all-out war. Like all previous invasions of Lebanon, this would be a great crime and a huge mistake, but hardly an apocalyptic event.

    Indeed, to all appearances it is a re-run of 2006, when predictions of an American attack on Iran were also running high, but eventually Bush got cold feet and the Israeli army was roundly defeated in the mountain valleys of South Lebanon.

    2. If It Comes

    However, if this optimistic prognosis goes the way of some weather broadcasts, and instead of a sunny day with rainy spells we get a full-blown storm, the whole fabric of the Middle East will unravel. This juggernaut will be unstoppable. After Iran, Syria will fall. After Syria, Saudi Arabia. It will be the classic domino game: Iran rejoiced when Iraq fell. Saudis wish Iran to fall. Israel wants to break Saudi Arabia to pieces, and then the rest of the Middle East. This is inscribed in their Clean Break paper and its source, Oded Yinon’s paper, which they follow religiously.

    If Saudis have too poor a memory, let us remind them: A few months after 9/11, Rand Corporation analyst Laurent Murawiec briefed Richard Perle’s Defence Policy Board, calling upon the US to break up Saudi Arabia. Its oil fields should be targeted and its financial assets seized, advised this neocon. I wrote back then, in an essay appropriately called Take your Money and Run:

    “The riches of the Arabian Peninsula hoodwink the Jews, being tantalisingly within the reach of IDF Merkaba tanks. They have too many good reasons to undo Saudi Arabia.

    – Saudis have too much money, too much oil and too few friends.

    – Elimination of all Saudi financial assets will invigorate the flabby Dow Jones average and strengthen the weakened dollar.

    – This prosperous and well-armed country must be reduced before Israel takes its most important step, the seizure and destruction of the beautiful Umayyad Mosques in Jerusalem.”

    With the destruction of Iran, the countdown for the takeover of Saudi Arabia would begin. In the words of a neocon: “Everyone wants to take out Tehran. But a real mensch wants to take out ar-Riyadh”. Provided that no attack on Iran is possible without Saudi connivance, the “irony of history” will be complete. The enemies of Israel will be taken out one after another, each with help of the next still unsuspecting victim.

    3. The Second Shoe

    But an attack on Lebanon is not a sure thing, and that will not be the end of the story, predicts one of the best experts, David Hirst, an old Eastern hand and a brilliant British journalist, the like of Robert Fisk and Patrick Seale. He had written arguably the best book ever about Palestine/Israel called The Gun and the Olive Branch years ago, and ever since then I have been waiting for this second book as one waits for the second shoe to drop. Now he has delivered it and unravelled all the mysteries of this extremely confusing country where alliances do not last, and expectations come to nought.

    If you read one book a year, this year read Beware of Small States by David Hirst, and you’ll understand why Israeli invasions of Lebanon always have been and always will be an unmitigated disaster for all parties involved. Lebanon is small, but the advice of Bismarck, “Do not ever invade it” (he meant Russia), is perfectly applicable to it as well.

    Hirst predicts that the next, the Seventh Arab-Israeli War, will begin like a second round of 2006 (by an Israeli attack on Lebanon), but that this war will spread to Syria and Gaza. It will be a missile war, like 2006 written large. Afterwards, it will likely spread over all of the Middle East, until the Zionist aggression is repulsed.

    Hirst predicts: “…a seemingly interminable [Israeli – Arab] conflict which began with the sword the sword will end, but it may have to administer many a bloody and painful, yet inconclusive blow before it finally does so”.

    4. Give them war

    However small the chances for all-out war, we should not sit by, wail and wait for the enemy to act. But fear of war is not the best adviser. If they want war, give them war. Attack the chief warmonger, and we know who that is. Name him ‘the Lobby’ with Mearsheimer, or the ‘Zionist Power Configuration’ with Petras, or ‘Masters of Discourse’ as this writer or whatever. They are calling the shots, let them foot the bill. For years there was a discussion whether the Dog (American imperialism) wags the tail (Israel Lobby) or other way around. Now the debate is over. “This is not a case of the Tail wagging the Dog,” quipped Anatole Lieven, “but of the Tail wagging the unfortunate Dog around the room and banging its head against the ceiling”.

    What is the secret of its success? It is alchemy, of sorts. Not in vain did the Jews stand at the cradle of alchemy. However, the alchemists of old tried to transmute base metals into gold. The modern alchemists of the Lobby transmute the real gold of your labour into Fools Gold and pay others with it. Instead of bubbling retorts and overflowing alembics, they use shares, bonds, loans, mortgages, derivatives and other instruments by which Goldman-Sachs and Madoff and hundreds of other banksters rob you of your livelihood. This alchemy is nothing more than counterfeiting. They borrow a hundred dollars from you, turn it into a hundred thousand dollars debt and force the Treasury (staffed by their own guys) to repay the debt in full at your expense.

    Deal with them, and you will save yourselves. As a bonus, you’ll save the world, too. It is them, not the Iranians or Iraqis, you Americans should fight. The great American, Eugene Debs has said: “If you are given weapons, do not use them against far-away strangers. Turn them against your true enemy at home. Expropriate the expropriators, rob the robbers.”

    5. Alchemical Wedding

    The Alchemist’s exploits do not end with transmuting your labour into Fools Gold for others and real gold for himself. Miraculously the Alchemist weds the most reactionary forces to the most enlightened liberals in a mock-alchemical marriage. The real thing is a mystical union of King and Queen, of Logos and Soul, of Masculine and Feminine. The Lobby’s version is a Fools wedding.

    Their King is the Lobby’s new ally: the Tea-Party mob of pseudo-right Republicans with an admixture of European fascists like Geert Wilders. These men and women, united by their hatred of Islam, of communists, of China and Russia, have recently sworn obedience to Israel and supported an attack on Iran. This is a new Far Right that chooses to make friends with Jews, just like Mussolini and Franco did.

    For the feminine soulful element, the wonderful alchemists of the Lobby chose gender activists. Not the Queen, but a Drag Queen. They are as destructive as fascists. Remember, the attack on Afghanistan was preceded by a verbal barrage from the gender activists, as I wrote at the time. They justified the forthcoming slaughter and occupation by saying that “Afghani men mistreat their women and gays”. The horrors of burka were enlarged upon endlessly.

    It is repeated now. Here are three most recent headlines on Iran from the Guardian, the best paper of the moderate Left:

    – Iranian facing stoning speaks: ‘It’s because I’m a woman';

    – When adultery means death,

    – Iran set to execute 18-year-old on false charge of sodomy.

    It is a replay of the treatment they gave to the Soviet communism. On the right, President Reagan wished to bomb Moscow; the pseudo-left prepared the ground by condemning the Soviets for their lack of democracy and treatment of dissidents and Jews. What a wonderful division of labour: the pseudo Right calls to kill the Bolshies or the gooks, the false Left (now gender activists) justifies the killing.

    Gender activists are not men and women with certain sexual preferences. We do not care about people’s private lives. Let it remain private. Gender activists use gender as their key factor. It is not woman but feminists. It is not practitioners of same-sex relations but gay-activists, or Gay International of Joseph Massad.

    Why gender activism became so important in the war against Islam (and with the Church)? Why this media-promoted obsession with gender activism? This is not due to compassion. They are chosen and protected because, by the brazenness of their actions, they mock the sanctity of marriage in general, and ultimately that of archetypical sacred marriage, of the union of Heaven and Earth in order to undermine the sacral fabric of the world. They help to profane the world, to remove the last vestiges of holiness, and that is the true ultimate goal of the Masters of Discourse.

    In the name of profanation the Judeo-Americans go to fight the pious puritans of Persia and the warrior monks of Lebanon, for their faith-based society is impervious to the rot. The Masters could overlook Iranian nuclear reactors, like they overlooked the Pakistani bomb. It is Iranians’ belief in God they can’t tolerate.

Leave a Reply