Part Two:
Behind The Iran Crisis
By Mark Weber
[Institute for Historical Review]
Investigative journalist Seymour Hersh reports that the US is planning military action against Iran, and that President Bush is already intent on “regime change” there. Hersh wrote that the Bush administration is stepping up clandestine activities inside Iran, and has intensified planning for a major air attack. Hersh also concluded that the White House is considering the use of tactical nuclear weapons against Iran.
With regard to Iran, professors Walt and Mearsheimer wrote in their paper: “Israelis tend to describe every threat in the starkest terms, but Iran is widely seen as their most dangerous enemy because it is the most likely to acquire nuclear weapons. Virtually all Israelis regard an Islamic country in the Middle East with nuclear weapons as a threat to their existence… In late April 2003, [the Israeli daily] Ha’aretz reported that the Israeli ambassador in Washington was calling for regime change in Iran. The overthrow of Saddam, he noted, was ‘not enough’. In his words, America ‘has to follow through. We still have great threats of that magnitude coming from Syria, coming from Iran.’ The neo-conservatives, too, lost no time in making the case for regime change in Tehran … As usual, a bevy of articles by prominent neo-conservatives made the case for going after Iran…
“The Bush administration has responded to the Lobby’s pressure by working overtime to shut down Iran’s nuclear program. But Washington has had little success, and Iran seems determined to create a nuclear arsenal. As a result, the Lobby has intensified its pressure. Op-eds and other articles now warn of imminent dangers from a nuclear Iran, caution against any appeasement of a ‘terrorist’ regime, and hint darkly of preventive action should diplomacy fail... Israeli officials also warn they may take pre-emptive action should Iran continue down the nuclear road, threats partly intended to keep Washington’s attention on the issue.
“One might argue that Israel and the Lobby have not had much influence on policy towards Iran, because the US has its own reasons for keeping Iran from going nuclear. There is some truth in this, but Iran’s nuclear ambitions do not pose a direct threat to the US. If Washington could live with a nuclear Soviet Union, a nuclear China or even a nuclear North Korea, it can live with a nuclear Iran. And that is why the Lobby must keep up constant pressure on politicians to confront Tehran. Iran and the US would hardly be allies if the Lobby did not exist, but US policy would be more temperate and preventive war would not be a serious option.”
Neocon
A good example of the “bevy of articles” referred to here by Walt and Mearsheimer is a prominently featured piece in the Los Angeles Times last November, entitled, “Force is the Only Answer.” Written by Joshua Muravchik, a prominent neocon associated with the pro-Israel “American Enterprise Institute” think tank, the essay begins with the sentence: “We must bomb Iran.”
In Israel, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert called Iran an “existential threat,” and in January the London Sunday Times reported that the Israeli government is planning to attack Iran’s uranium enrichment facilities with tactical nuclear weapons.
In December the former commander of the artillery units of Israel’s armed forces, Brigadier General Oded Tira, has been candid in calling for a US attack against Iran on behalf of the Jewish state. General Tira declared:
“President Bush lacks the political power to attack Iran. As an American strike in Iran is essential for our existence, we must help him pave the way by lobbying the Democratic Party and US newspaper editors. We need to do this in order to turn the Iranian issue to a bipartisan one and unrelated to the Iraq failure. We must turn to Hillary Clinton and other potential candidates in the Democratic Party so that they publicly support immediate action by Bush against Iran.”
Scott Ritter, an American who served as a senior United Nations weapons inspector in Iraq from 1991 to 1998, says in his new book, Target Iran: “The Bush administration, with the able help of the Israeli government and the pro-Israel lobby, has succeeded in exploiting the ignorance of the American people about nuclear technology and nuclear weapons so as to engender enough fear that the American public has more or less been pre-programmed to accept the notion of the need to militarily confront a nuclear armed Iran.” Ritter also writes: “Let there be no doubt: If there is an American war with Iran it is a war that was made in Israel and nowhere else.”
Unilateral
An attack against Iran by the United States, or Israel, would be, in the absence of an imminent threat, an illegal, unilateral act of war. If undertaken by the US without a formal congressional declaration of war, such an attack would be unconstitutional. A war against Iran would serve only Israeli and Zionist interests. For everyone else, war against Iran would be a catastrophe.
For many years now, American political leaders of both parties have declared themselves staunchly committed to Israel and its security. This unparalleled devotion to Israel – which is an expression of the Jewish-Zionist grip on America’s political and cultural life – seems to have reached an apex in the current administration.
In an address to pro-Israel activists at a convention of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), President Bush said: “The United States is strongly committed, and I am strongly committed, to the security of Israel as a vibrant Jewish state.”
President Bush’s worldview is shared by Condoleezza Rice, who served as his National Security Advisor, and is now US Secretary of State. In a May 2003 interview Rice made the astounding statement that the “security of Israel is the key to security of the world.”
It’s difficult to imagine an American leader making a similar statement about any other country. Imagine a US Secretary of State saying, for example, that the “security of Nigeria is the key to security of the world.” Or, that the security of Russia, Taiwan, or Serbia, is the key to security of the world. It’s unthinkable.
President Bush, in talking about the possibility of war against Iran, has sometimes “slipped” by candidly citing Israel as the sole or primary reason for taking military action against Iran.
Destroy
In an interview in February 2006, he was asked about his reaction to anti-Israel remarks by Iran’s president. Bush replied: “We will rise to Israel’s defense, if need be.” And he added, “You bet we’ll defend Israel."
In a speech in March 2006, Bush said: “Now that I’m on Iran … the threat from Iran is, of course, their stated objective to destroy our strong ally Israel. It’s a threat to world peace; it’s a threat, in essence, to a strong alliance. I made it clear, I’ll make it clear again, that we will use military might to protect our ally, Israel.”
Such remarks have worried Jewish leaders – not because they do not agree with them, or because they doubt Bush’s sincerity, but because they believe that the President has been too candid, too open, in acknowledging Israel’s importance in determining American war policy. Jewish leaders are concerned that non-Jews might draw all-too-obvious conclusions from such statements.
In April 2006, the Jewish Week of New York reported: “President Bush is risking a backlash that could injure the Jewish community – and his own cause – by repeatedly citing Israel as his top rationale for possible US military conflict with Iran, Jewish leaders and Middle East analysts warned... Bush’s repeated, sometimes exclusive, focus on Israel could spark public fury against the Jewish state and Jews if US military action is accompanied by skyrocketing gas prices, terrorism at home or fallen GIs who might be seen as dying for Israel, some said.”
Another Jewish community paper, the influential Forward of New York reported in May 2006: “Jewish community leaders have urged the White House to refrain from publicly pledging to defend Israel against possible Iranian hostilities, senior Jewish activists told the Forward … [Jewish] communal leaders say that although they deeply appreciate the president’s repeated promises to come to Israel’s defense, public declarations to that effect do more harm than good.” Jewish leaders went on to express concern that such statements “could lead to American Jews being blamed for any negative consequences of an American strike against Iran.”
Taliban
George W. Bush, and others in his administration, have often lectured Iran about democracy. Well, that’s pretty rich coming from a man who became president after an election in which he received fewer votes than his opponent.
Contrary to the impression given by the Bush administration and neocon propagandists, Iran was never allied with, or even friendly to, the Al Qaeda organization or the Taliban regime in neighboring Afghanistan. In fact, in 1999 Iran almost went to war against Taliban-ruled Afghanistan after Taliban fighters kidnapped and murdered nine Iranian diplomats.
In the barrage of alarmist anti-Iran and pro-war propaganda of recent months, we’ve heard a lot about how Iran is a great danger to Jews. To be sure, Jews do not have anything like the power and influence in Iran that they do here in the US, but the insinuation that Iran’s Jews are somehow terrorized or oppressed is rubbish. Jews have far more freedom in Iran than they do in several Middle East countries that are allied with the United States, such as Saudi Arabia or Pakistan. Iran’s Jewish community of some 25,000 is represented in the nation’s parliament by a Jewish representative. There are 20 active synagogues in Tehran. The Jews of Iran, many of whom own and run successful businesses, have a standard of living that is above the country’s average.
To put this Iran “crisis” into some perspective, it’s worth noting that although Iran has not attacked another country in 200 years, it has itself repeatedly been a victim of aggression. A look at the historical record shows that Iran has at least some valid reason to be skeptical of Washington ’s policies and intentions.
http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=6389
Behind The Iran Crisis
By Mark Weber
[Institute for Historical Review]
Investigative journalist Seymour Hersh reports that the US is planning military action against Iran, and that President Bush is already intent on “regime change” there. Hersh wrote that the Bush administration is stepping up clandestine activities inside Iran, and has intensified planning for a major air attack. Hersh also concluded that the White House is considering the use of tactical nuclear weapons against Iran.
With regard to Iran, professors Walt and Mearsheimer wrote in their paper: “Israelis tend to describe every threat in the starkest terms, but Iran is widely seen as their most dangerous enemy because it is the most likely to acquire nuclear weapons. Virtually all Israelis regard an Islamic country in the Middle East with nuclear weapons as a threat to their existence… In late April 2003, [the Israeli daily] Ha’aretz reported that the Israeli ambassador in Washington was calling for regime change in Iran. The overthrow of Saddam, he noted, was ‘not enough’. In his words, America ‘has to follow through. We still have great threats of that magnitude coming from Syria, coming from Iran.’ The neo-conservatives, too, lost no time in making the case for regime change in Tehran … As usual, a bevy of articles by prominent neo-conservatives made the case for going after Iran…
“The Bush administration has responded to the Lobby’s pressure by working overtime to shut down Iran’s nuclear program. But Washington has had little success, and Iran seems determined to create a nuclear arsenal. As a result, the Lobby has intensified its pressure. Op-eds and other articles now warn of imminent dangers from a nuclear Iran, caution against any appeasement of a ‘terrorist’ regime, and hint darkly of preventive action should diplomacy fail... Israeli officials also warn they may take pre-emptive action should Iran continue down the nuclear road, threats partly intended to keep Washington’s attention on the issue.
“One might argue that Israel and the Lobby have not had much influence on policy towards Iran, because the US has its own reasons for keeping Iran from going nuclear. There is some truth in this, but Iran’s nuclear ambitions do not pose a direct threat to the US. If Washington could live with a nuclear Soviet Union, a nuclear China or even a nuclear North Korea, it can live with a nuclear Iran. And that is why the Lobby must keep up constant pressure on politicians to confront Tehran. Iran and the US would hardly be allies if the Lobby did not exist, but US policy would be more temperate and preventive war would not be a serious option.”
Neocon
A good example of the “bevy of articles” referred to here by Walt and Mearsheimer is a prominently featured piece in the Los Angeles Times last November, entitled, “Force is the Only Answer.” Written by Joshua Muravchik, a prominent neocon associated with the pro-Israel “American Enterprise Institute” think tank, the essay begins with the sentence: “We must bomb Iran.”
In Israel, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert called Iran an “existential threat,” and in January the London Sunday Times reported that the Israeli government is planning to attack Iran’s uranium enrichment facilities with tactical nuclear weapons.
In December the former commander of the artillery units of Israel’s armed forces, Brigadier General Oded Tira, has been candid in calling for a US attack against Iran on behalf of the Jewish state. General Tira declared:
“President Bush lacks the political power to attack Iran. As an American strike in Iran is essential for our existence, we must help him pave the way by lobbying the Democratic Party and US newspaper editors. We need to do this in order to turn the Iranian issue to a bipartisan one and unrelated to the Iraq failure. We must turn to Hillary Clinton and other potential candidates in the Democratic Party so that they publicly support immediate action by Bush against Iran.”
Scott Ritter, an American who served as a senior United Nations weapons inspector in Iraq from 1991 to 1998, says in his new book, Target Iran: “The Bush administration, with the able help of the Israeli government and the pro-Israel lobby, has succeeded in exploiting the ignorance of the American people about nuclear technology and nuclear weapons so as to engender enough fear that the American public has more or less been pre-programmed to accept the notion of the need to militarily confront a nuclear armed Iran.” Ritter also writes: “Let there be no doubt: If there is an American war with Iran it is a war that was made in Israel and nowhere else.”
Unilateral
An attack against Iran by the United States, or Israel, would be, in the absence of an imminent threat, an illegal, unilateral act of war. If undertaken by the US without a formal congressional declaration of war, such an attack would be unconstitutional. A war against Iran would serve only Israeli and Zionist interests. For everyone else, war against Iran would be a catastrophe.
For many years now, American political leaders of both parties have declared themselves staunchly committed to Israel and its security. This unparalleled devotion to Israel – which is an expression of the Jewish-Zionist grip on America’s political and cultural life – seems to have reached an apex in the current administration.
In an address to pro-Israel activists at a convention of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), President Bush said: “The United States is strongly committed, and I am strongly committed, to the security of Israel as a vibrant Jewish state.”
President Bush’s worldview is shared by Condoleezza Rice, who served as his National Security Advisor, and is now US Secretary of State. In a May 2003 interview Rice made the astounding statement that the “security of Israel is the key to security of the world.”
It’s difficult to imagine an American leader making a similar statement about any other country. Imagine a US Secretary of State saying, for example, that the “security of Nigeria is the key to security of the world.” Or, that the security of Russia, Taiwan, or Serbia, is the key to security of the world. It’s unthinkable.
President Bush, in talking about the possibility of war against Iran, has sometimes “slipped” by candidly citing Israel as the sole or primary reason for taking military action against Iran.
Destroy
In an interview in February 2006, he was asked about his reaction to anti-Israel remarks by Iran’s president. Bush replied: “We will rise to Israel’s defense, if need be.” And he added, “You bet we’ll defend Israel."
In a speech in March 2006, Bush said: “Now that I’m on Iran … the threat from Iran is, of course, their stated objective to destroy our strong ally Israel. It’s a threat to world peace; it’s a threat, in essence, to a strong alliance. I made it clear, I’ll make it clear again, that we will use military might to protect our ally, Israel.”
Such remarks have worried Jewish leaders – not because they do not agree with them, or because they doubt Bush’s sincerity, but because they believe that the President has been too candid, too open, in acknowledging Israel’s importance in determining American war policy. Jewish leaders are concerned that non-Jews might draw all-too-obvious conclusions from such statements.
In April 2006, the Jewish Week of New York reported: “President Bush is risking a backlash that could injure the Jewish community – and his own cause – by repeatedly citing Israel as his top rationale for possible US military conflict with Iran, Jewish leaders and Middle East analysts warned... Bush’s repeated, sometimes exclusive, focus on Israel could spark public fury against the Jewish state and Jews if US military action is accompanied by skyrocketing gas prices, terrorism at home or fallen GIs who might be seen as dying for Israel, some said.”
Another Jewish community paper, the influential Forward of New York reported in May 2006: “Jewish community leaders have urged the White House to refrain from publicly pledging to defend Israel against possible Iranian hostilities, senior Jewish activists told the Forward … [Jewish] communal leaders say that although they deeply appreciate the president’s repeated promises to come to Israel’s defense, public declarations to that effect do more harm than good.” Jewish leaders went on to express concern that such statements “could lead to American Jews being blamed for any negative consequences of an American strike against Iran.”
Taliban
George W. Bush, and others in his administration, have often lectured Iran about democracy. Well, that’s pretty rich coming from a man who became president after an election in which he received fewer votes than his opponent.
Contrary to the impression given by the Bush administration and neocon propagandists, Iran was never allied with, or even friendly to, the Al Qaeda organization or the Taliban regime in neighboring Afghanistan. In fact, in 1999 Iran almost went to war against Taliban-ruled Afghanistan after Taliban fighters kidnapped and murdered nine Iranian diplomats.
In the barrage of alarmist anti-Iran and pro-war propaganda of recent months, we’ve heard a lot about how Iran is a great danger to Jews. To be sure, Jews do not have anything like the power and influence in Iran that they do here in the US, but the insinuation that Iran’s Jews are somehow terrorized or oppressed is rubbish. Jews have far more freedom in Iran than they do in several Middle East countries that are allied with the United States, such as Saudi Arabia or Pakistan. Iran’s Jewish community of some 25,000 is represented in the nation’s parliament by a Jewish representative. There are 20 active synagogues in Tehran. The Jews of Iran, many of whom own and run successful businesses, have a standard of living that is above the country’s average.
To put this Iran “crisis” into some perspective, it’s worth noting that although Iran has not attacked another country in 200 years, it has itself repeatedly been a victim of aggression. A look at the historical record shows that Iran has at least some valid reason to be skeptical of Washington ’s policies and intentions.
http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=6389
No comments:
Post a Comment