Iraq, Israel, Iran

When John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt's article on the Israel Lobby appeared in the London Review of Books, after having been commissioned and killed by the Atlantic Monthly, neoconservative publicists launched an all-out campaign to slander the authors as anti-Semites. Now that their book The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy has appeared--a work of considerable scope, carefully documented, and not just an expanded version of the article--the imputation of anti-Semitism will doubtless be repeated more sparingly for readers lower down the educational ladder. Meanwhile, the literate establishment press will (a) ignore it, (b) pretend that it says nothing new or surprising, and (c) rule out the probable inferences from the data, on the ground that the very meaning of the word "lobby" is elusive.

The truth is that many new facts are in this book, and many surprising facts. By reconstructing a trail of meetings and public statements in 2001-2002, for example, the authors show that much of the leadership of Israel was puzzled at first by the boyish enthusiasm for a war on Iraq among their neoconservative allies. Why Iraq? they asked. Why now? They would appear to have obtained assurances, however, that once the "regime change" in Iraq was accomplished, the next war would be against Iran.

A notable pilgrimage followed. One by one they lined up, Netanyahu, Sharon, Peres, and Barak, writing op-eds and issuing flaming warnings to convince Americans that Saddam Hussein was a menace of world-historical magnitude. Suddenly the message was that any delay of the president's plan to bomb, invade, and occupy Iraq would be seized on by "the terrorists" as a sign of weakness. Regarding the correct treatment of terrorists, as also regarding the avoidance of weakness, Americans look to Israelis as mentors in a class by themselves.

So a war projected years before by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz--a war secured at last by the fixing of the facts around the policy at the Office of the Vice President--was allowed to borrow some prestige at an intermediate stage by the consent of a few well-regarded Israeli politicians. Yet their target of choice had been Iran. They accepted the change of sequence without outward signs of doubt, possibly owing to their acquaintance with the Middle East doctrine espoused by the Weekly Standard and the American Enterprise Institute--a doctrine which held that to create a viable order after the fall of Iraq, regime change in Iran and Syria would have to follow expeditiously.

To sum up this part: the evidence of Mearsheimer and Walt suggests that Israel was never the prime mover of the Iraq war. Rather, once the Cheney-Wolfowitz design was in place, the Israeli ministers who trooped through American opinion pages and news-talk shows did what they could to heat up the war fever. This war was on the cards before they threw in their lot with Cheney and Bush; by their efforts they merely helped to confer on the plan an aura of legitimacy and worldly wisdom.

But now the American war with Iran they originally wanted is coming closer. Last Tuesday, when the mass media were crammed to distraction with the behavior of a senator in an airport washroom, few could be troubled to notice an important speech by President Bush. If Iran is allowed to persist in its present state, the president told the American Legion convention in Reno, it threatens "to put a region already known for instability and violence under the shadow of a nuclear holocaust." He said he had no intention of allowing that; and so he has "authorized our military commanders in Iraq to confront Tehran's murderous activities." Those words come close to saying not that a war is coming but that it is already here. No lawmaker who reads them can affect the slightest shock at any action the president takes against Iran.

Admittedly, it was a showdown speech, reckless and belligerent, to a soldier audience; but then, this has been just the sort of crowd and message that Cheney and Bush favor when they are about to open a new round of killings. And in a sense, the Senate had given the president his cue when it approved, by a vote of 97-0, the July 11 Lieberman Amendment to Confront Iran. It is hardly an accident that the president and his favorite tame senator concurred in their choice of the word "confront." The pretext for the Lieberman amendment, as for the president's order, was the discovery of caches of weapons alleged to belong to Iran, the capture of Iranian advisers said to be operating against American troops, and the assertion that the most deadly IEDs used against Americans are often traceable to Iranian sources--claims that have been widely treated in the press as possible, but suspect and unverified. Still, the vote was 97-0. If few Americans took notice, the government of Iran surely did.

That unanimous vote was the latest in a series of capitulations that has included the apparent end of resistance by Nancy Pelosi to the next war. After the election of 2006, the speaker of the house declared her intention to enact into law a requirement that this president seek separate authorization for a war against Iran. On the point of doing so, she addressed the AIPAC convention, and was booed for criticizing the escalation of the Iraq war. Pelosi took the hint, shelved her authorization plan, and went with AIPAC against the anti-war base of the Democratic party.

This much, one might know without the help of Mearsheimer and Walt. But without their record, how many would trace the connection between the removal of Philip Zelikow as policy counselor of the state department, at the end of 2006, and a speech Zelikow had given in September 2006 urging serious negotiation and a two-state solution for Israel and Palestine? The ousting of Zelikow was a blessing to the war party, since it freed them from a skeptical confidant of Secretary of State Rice--perhaps the only person of stature anywhere near the administration whom she treated as an ally and friend. And the meaning of the change was clear when Zelikow's replacement turned out to be Eliot Cohen: a neoconservative war scholar and enthusiast, an early booster of the "surge" on the pundit shows, and incidentally a shameless slanderer of Mearsheimer-Walt ("Yes, It's Anti-Semitic," Washington Post, April 5, 2006).

From Zelikow to Cohen was only a step on the long path of humiliation that now stretched before Condoleeza Rice. When, in March 2007, amid suggestions of a renewal of diplomacy, she intimated that talks might be helpful in dealing with the Hamas-Fatah unity government (whose formation the Arab world had greeted as offering a promise of peace), she was demolished by an AIPAC-backed advisory letter bearing the signatures of 79 senators, which directed her not to speak with a government that had not yet recognized Israel. From that moment Rice was effectively neutralized.

The hottest cries for another war have been coming this summer from Joe Lieberman. He has called for attacks on Iran, and for attacks on Syria. It is as if Lieberman, with his appetite for multiple theaters of conflict, spoke from the congealed memory of all the wars he never fought. But Joe Lieberman is a stalking-horse. He would not say these things without getting permission from Vice President Cheney, a close and admired friend. Nor would Cheney permit a high-profile lawmaker whom he partly controls to set the United States and Israel on so perilous a course unless he had ascertained its acceptability to Ehud Olmert.

Yet the chief orchestrater of the second neoconservative war of aggression is Elliott Abrams. Convicted for deceptions around Iran-Contra, as Lewis Libby was convicted for deceptions stemming from Iraq--and pardoned by the elder Bush just as Libby had his sentence commuted by the younger--Abrams now presides over the Middle East desk at the National Security Council. All of the wildness of this astonishing functionary and all his reckless love of subversion will be required to pump up the "imminent danger" of Iran. For here, as with Iraq, the danger can only be made to look imminent by manipulation and forgery. On all sober estimates, Iran is several months from mastering the nuclear cycle, and several years from producing a weapon. Whereas Israel for decades has been in possession of a substantial nuclear arsenal.

How mad is Elliott Abrams? If one passage cited by Mearsheimer-Walt is quoted accurately, it would seem to be the duty of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to subject Abrams to as exacting a challenge as the Senate Judiciary Committee brought to Alberto Gonzales. The man at the Middle East desk of the National Security Council wrote in 1997 in his book Faith or Fear: "there can be no doubt that Jews, faithful to the covenant between God and Abraham, are to stand apart from the nation in which they live. It is the very nature of being Jewish to be apart--except in Israel--from the rest of the population." When he wrote those words, Abrams probably did not expect to serve in another American administration. He certainly did not expect to occupy a position that would require him to weigh the national interest of Israel, the country with which he confessed himself uniquely at one, alongside the national interest of a country in which he felt himself to stand "apart...from the rest of the population." Now that he is calling the shots against Hamas and Hezbollah, Damascus and Tehran, his words of 1997 ought to alarm us into reflection.

Among many possible lines of inquiry, the senators might begin by recognizing that the United States has other allies in Asia besides Israel. One of those allies is India; and there is a further point of resemblance. In a distinct exception to our anti-proliferation policy, we have allowed India to develop nuclear weapons; just as, in an earlier such exception, we allowed Israel to do the same. But suppose we read tomorrow a statement by the director of the South Asia desk of the National Security Council which declared: "There can be no doubt that Hindus are to stand apart from any nation in which they live. It is the very nature of being Hindu to be apart--except in India--from the rest of the population." Suppose, further, we knew this man still held these beliefs at a time of maximum tension between India and Pakistan; and that he had recently channeled 86 million dollars to regional gangs and militias bent on increasing the tension. Would we not conclude that something in our counsels of state had gone seriously out of joint?

The Mearsheimer-Walt study of American policy deserves to be widely read and discussed. It could not be more timely. If the speeches and saber-rattling by the president, the ambassador to Iraq, and several army officers mean anything, they mean that Cheney and Abrams are preparing to do to Iran what Cheney and Wolfowitz did to Iraq. They are gunning for an incident. They are working against some resistance from the armed forces but none from the opposition party at home. The president has ordered American troops to confront Iran. Sarkozy has fallen into line, Brown and Merkel are silent, and outside the United States only Mohamed ElBaradei of the International Atomic Energy Agency stands between the war party and a prefabricated justification for a war that would extend across a vast subcontinent. Unless some opposition can rouse itself, we are poised to descend with non-partisan compliance into a moral and political disaster that will dwarf anything America has seen.

Comments

[LanceThruster]

Thank you for an excellent piece. I am somewhat surprised as often readers' comments on HuffPo of this nature are screened out. We are truly in trouble when even people with similar political views act as gatekeepers, preventing controversial issues from being discussed.

[JustADumbFireman]

Mommamia: "And Iran is not necessarily Arab, there are large percentages of other groups"

Iran is OVERWHELMINGLY non-Arab. Do your homework.

[davegnyc]

Yes, the neocons are independent actors, but they did it for the benefit of Israel. They had been pushing for an attack on Iraq years before 9/11.

And once the deal was made, Israel did push for the Iraq war. Whether they were proded or did so on their own accord makes no difference.

And the whole thing was aided by the groud troops of the AIPAC and those that try to silence or subdue debate with charges of anti-semitism.

[mommamia526]

Just one more step, buddy, you are almost there. The U.S. did not invade Iraq, it was AIPAC, and AIPAC... Yep, here we go again, the jews did it, or the jews made me do it, and IF it were not for the jews! I refer to Eric Berne: "games people play". This same game is played over and over, not only with the jews. It is a game of guilty people who want to put the blame elsewhere.

[tko]

Bromwich is absolutely right. I agree a great well written article.

CSE, thanks for the Youtube link

Here is a Jerusalem Post article on our CongrASS and how pro-Israel they are. At the same time this article was on their site, there was also an article criticizing Keith Ellison for being the first Moslem in CongrASS.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1167467657033&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

[SilverBurlap]

An absolutely great article, Mr. Bromwich.

One thing that is of particular interest for me our leaders have made us THE complete aggressor in the middle east. Over are the days when America stood as a liberator and protector throughout the world. And its clear that if we keep going the way we are going, that we will not only lose all respect in the international community, but will also end up less safe.

Its as if the war with Iraq and the possibility of a war with Iran are the first public relations wars in our history. It is the pretentious and arrogant attitude of guys like Cheney, Leiberman, Abrams, Rumsfeld, Bremer, Wolfowitz, and Perle that get us, as a nation, into trouble. What strikes me as both surprising and maddening is not so much that these hawks exist and are in positions of power, but that they are enabled by both our Congress and us as a people.

But, hopefully, we can solve these problems. We elect these jerks year in and year out. Connecticut, the state I'm from, chose Lieberman as an independent willing to supposedly "bridge the gap". He was able to garner Republican votes because their candidate was weak and they, in hopes of "picking the winning horse", chose Lieberman as the lesser of two evils.

As for the public, it needs to be education. Its needs to be media literacy, where kids are taught young that they are being manipulated by both the right and left and that the only way to do things right is to learn to think for one's self. I will try to maintain hope for better times, but its hard. What I see is the beginnings of a democratic-fascist state where people are kept happy allowing themselves to be marginalized in society to a life of political, social and cultural naivety and ambivalence.

[jhNY]

Unfortunately, we are mostly a nation of morons who wear our stupidity on our sleeves like a badge of honor. We have been educated to be compliant employees with a hankering for whatever crap they're selling at the mall right now, and that's about it. When we attack Iran, most people here won't even watch it on TV. Faith in ordinary people is another word for social despair, only the bearer of that faith is usually a bit older than he'd like to be when he figures it out.
Selfish, vindictive, greedy and vulgar by choice. To roughly paraphrase Alexander Hamilton, " the public, Sir, is an ass." Of course, I realize that to have any hope for the future one must truly believe in the goodness, potentially at the very least, of ordinary people. Sorry to say you'll have to include me out.

[joebaggadonuts]

You should read Clippinger's A Crowd of One. Don't give up.

[mommamia526]

Well now! Let us forget about the utterances of Ahmadinejad, the fact that Iran is going against the wishes of the UN, and that Ahmadinejad just at the end of last week declared that he had all the centrifuges for full speed nuke production in place. Of course, he did retract that already on Sunday, and on Monday, that is yesterday, Ahmadinejad is reported to have had high level discussions with Syria. Anyone miss Ahmadinejad's threats that he would wipe Israel AND the U.S. off the face of this earth, and not necessarily in that order? Or, that Iran via its satelite Syria, and also directly, is involved in the several insurgent movements in Lebanon, Gaza, Iraq and the P.A.? One can not discuss one side of a coin and pretend there is no other side. Israel is in no position to dictate anything to the U.S., or else it would never have gone along with the socalled "roadmap". Anyone miss that there is purportedly also a "roadmap" for the U.S. connecting the coast of Mexico directly to Canada? Fact is, we do not really know what is going on behind the scenes, and who is talking and imposing to whom. The Israel Lobby is not the only lobby influencing Washington D.C. If Ahmadinejad would stop putting up his fists, threatening and preparing for nuclear war, or pretending he is, no one would have to be ready to intervene in the military complex in Iran, or..preten­d to. It could easily be threat and counter threat. Fact is that after series and series of terrorist attacks the world is taking threats, like those of Ahmadinejad, seriously enough to have a reasoned argument for preemptive strike. Now if someone in the Arab world could talk some sense into Ahmadinejad, and more specifically the Muslim *Clerics* who determine his moves, Iranians could be spared a lot of misery. That misery, moreover, dows not necessarily have to be inflicted by the U.S. And who are the characters in the play this writer is discussing?

[SilverBurlap]

Let us forget that Ahmadinejad is not a very popular man in his own country and that he is a military guy, much like our own, who because of pride will not let go off his extreme neo-con beliefs. Let us forget that regime toppling is both immoral and, as shown in Iraq, ridiculously difficult to deal with. Let us forget that not everyone in the world thinks like we do and forcing beliefs onto others proves to be impossible. Let us forget that we have a reputation to maintain in the world and that being the aggressor of two major wars in 10 years makes us look like a bully. Let us forget that after September 11th, most everyone in the world, including Iran, loved us and felt for us and were willing to help us fight the "terrorists".

But please, the one thing we must forget about is the idea that talking to countries and working with them constructively and peacefully has ever worked.

[straightshooter]

Mommamania

Please cite the authenticated source for your assertion that Ahmadinejad would "wipe Israel off the face of this earth." He did refer to the words of the late Imam Khomeini in a speech as follows: "The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time." ("Imam ghoft een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad.")

By quoting Khomeini, he was calling for end of the brutal, expansionist racist regime currently governing Israel. The phrase "wipe out" was not used, nor even "Israel." There was no threat to attack Israel. Nor has he made any any threat to attack the US (as if he could.) Indeed, the only threats to launch a war have been those against Iran by Israel and the US.

Furthermore, Iran has approved of the 2002 Arab League Beirut Peace Initiative (again presented to Israel last June) which offers Israel full recognition, exchange of ambassadors, etc. if it complies with international law and its previous commitments by withdrawing to its June 4/67 borders and agrees to help achieve a "just" solution to the Palestinian refugee problem.

Also, Iran would hardly want to launch a nuclear attack against Israel as it would result in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians and the prevailing winds would blow radioactivity into Syria, Jordan and Lebanon resulting in the deaths of tens/hundreds of thousands more Arab Muslims, including Shia.

[midtown]

I second you, straightshooter.

[Obamamo]

Amen to that. Israel is not interested in peace. Israel is a rogue state and It is the cause of all the mayhem we are witnessing in M.E. I am a pacifist, I don’t want to see Jews, Christians nor Muslims killed, but Israelis are wicked warmongering people.

[baylaw73]

I third you. Is that a real verb, "third?"

[dshwa]

How dare the president of Iran call for regime change in another soverign country. The nerve!!

[jhNY]

Having heard repeatedly about Ahmadinejad's threat to annihilate Israel and the US, I've never been able to locate exactly when or where he said it, although it's been said everywhere that he said it. Do you happen to have a direct quote in its original context? I would be very interested to read it.

As for his government's track record of compliance with UN wishes, one wishes that the record was better than Israel's. But it's not. Each nation does pretty much what it wants without regard to the wishes of that august body, as do we, the US, presently governed by the most dangerous regime on earth.

The doctrine of pre-emption seems reasonable mostly in the abstract, mostly in places like Israel and the US, where the power of our military has deluded us into imagining pre-emption might be carried out without great consequence. And yet this doctrine, if adopted by a nation like Iran, would seem to both our nations to be the very essence of aggressive lawlessness. After all, we'd never attack anybody who didn't deserve it--except Iraq, so far-- but we're sure the "enemy" (whoever that happens to be at the time)would. Well, that's how the other guy feels too.

After being defamed as part of an illusory "axis of evil", Iran, seeking to save itself from annihilation, has made the development of nuclear weapons the highest possible national priority, their statements to the contrary notwithstanding. Not hard to figure out why. Nations with atomic weapons hold a trump card to be shown, if not played, when invasion is in the offing. This is a direct result of Bush's pre-emptive doctrine, and of our entirely one-sided outlook in the region.

[oldpotsmuggler]

You are one scary Momma. Anyone with a lick of sense knows that Ahmadinejad ain't running nothing but his mouth when it comes to making realistic threats against the U.S. What's he going to do, take Iran Air over, knock on the door of the Whitehouse and call Bush out for a little man to man action? Because he sure as hell ain't going to do any more than that. Is he going to destroy Israel? Yeah, if Israel keeps flying off the handle at every provocation from Hezbollah, Israel will destroy itself. A martial arts kind of thing where the enraged enemy inflicts its own damage.

How is Iran bragging about uranium enrichment any different than Saddam Hussein bragging about WMD he didn't have, and North Korea bragging about nuclear warheads that don't actually blow up when tested? Posturing happens! Get used to it. Or are we going triple the size of our military so we can take out every blowhard out there?

Where would you like the price of gasoline to be. Five dollars per gallon, ten, one hundred?

We're at a critical point in human history where we can finally make a concerted and collective effort to do some coherent things on this big old spinning ball that we're all riding on. Alternatively, we can blind ourselves to the fact that opportunities for peaceful co-existence abound now, and we can contiue to carry on as if we have made no strides towards becoming a civilized species.

And none, it seems, are so blind as the whole fringe group of WWIII fanatics out there.

[mommamia526]

Oh, I am just a granny, nothing to be scared off, kid. I agree with you, totally, Ahmadinejad needs to stop shouting his mouth off. And Iran needs to allow UN inspections as the UN has requested. This scary Momma tells you, that all three Abramic religions are based on one Scripture, Torah, and nothing should be added, or subtracted from it. Torah does not allow for murder, and self murder, for example I can not remember that it allows for the Art of Deception, taqiyya, either. Certainly, I am not a WWIII fanatic, and I am not looking forward to Armageddon either; I am not a christian. Moreover, being a granny and being in Europe at the time, I remember WWII in full detail. After WWIII there will be no one to remember anything. This century and the previous one has seen worldwide migrations. We see it clearly, today, in the U.S. and in Europe. The landscapes and the culture changes, yet there is one group which wants to have the right to be everywhere, and yet disallows any foreign influx in their own territories. It can not be stopped. And if you think that is Israel you are wrong. That is an Israeli wish, for some, but not a reality which can be, or is enforced. There are mosques, and churches and temples in Israel and there is tolerance for others. We see, again and again, in Israel, that the religious right does not win. You are right that Ahmadinejad's bragging is not different, let us hope, from Saddam Hussein's bragging. All the more reason for him to stop that bragging. And I am calling, not on us westerners, but on Arabs, to call him to his senses, because we have seen what the U.S. may well do to answer that bragging.

[FarSeeingArt]

Do you have any references to an independent, good faith translation of Ahmadinejad's statements re Israel and US? Specifically, did he call for an end to the Zionist weight of the governments as in regime change or physical destruction as in Iraq? The only info I have also shows him behind a sign reading 'World without Zionism' ( or something very close to that) while delivering a speech.
I never heard of Syria as a satellite of Iran's. This is a first here.

[mommamia526]

The expression for Israel is *the Zionist Entity*. Or, do you think Ahmadinejad makes a *religious* statement? Of course, if he did so, being a muslim, he would also call for an end to the christian entity, or for a world without christianity.

[mae692]

Ahmadinejad's threat to Israel is what the media calls a 'narrative'. A 'narrative' is a cliche that gets repeated over and over. Using a 'narrative' helps to 'focus' the news story. The truth of the 'narrative' is irrelevant. For more information see 'anti-American cleric'.

I believe the statement was something like if someone said to you 'I'd be happy if you were dead'. Very unpleasant but not the same as 'I'm going to kill you.'

[CSE]

Uh-oh!

Cat's out of the bag...agai­n!

Here's a good video of Mearsheimer:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HSAqNuf55k0&mode=related&search=

A politician that opposes AIPAC has a dim future.
.

[dotmafia]

Israel was the first Middle East country to develop and stockpile nuclear weapons, fully sanctioned and helped by the United States of America. Israel is not a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and thus has had no external safeguard checks which are mandated by the United Nations. Therefore, Israel (and the U.S. indirectly) can be accurately said to have first started a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. Iran would be crazy to not want to develop nuclear weapons, having witnessed the U.S.'s invasion and occupation of its neighbour, as well as Israel's repeated attacks on Lebanon and the Palestinian territories. If your country felt threatened by an enemy who has declared you to be evil, and who has consistently meddled for 30 years in your own sphere of influence, would you not take steps to defend your sovereignty? Of course you would. Iran is naturally only reacting to the aggressive actions taken by a superior power which threatens its existence.

The United States can dish out meddling in the affairs of sovereign Middle East countries, but it can't take it in return? This from a so-called superpower which confronted the mighty Soviet Union for fifty years and won? The American public will not be so easily fooled again by tricks and lies spewed forth from the criminal mouths of Bush and Cheney.

The United States and Israel's longstanding policy of self-exclusion from international laws and signed treaties has created the problems in the Middle East, and reveals the true hypocrisy which lies at the foundation of United States foreign policy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._support_for_Iraq_during_the_Iran-Iraq_war

PS: This is NOT anti-semitic rhetoric, because Number 1: I was raised a Jew with a Jewish family and a long proud heritage. Number 2: it is truthful, unbiased logic free from the taint of ultra-patriotic American fervor. Do yourselves a favor and read Noam Chomsky's "Failed States" and "Hegemony and Survival" if you want to truly understand the truth about hypocrisy in America.
_

[baylaw73]

Your truthful and insightful post will likely be ignored. But I thank you.

[jinjinpinti]

So do I. It seems one can detect the real agendas of those in league with our national folly by their propensity to point their fingers of: Antisemetic!, Racist!, and that old standby, Unpatriotic cut 'n runner!

[CitizenoftheEmpire]

dotmafia is right,read "The Samson Option"by Sey Hersh.

[Skandal]

dotmafia, you are, of course, absolutely wrong about Israel's nuclear program. It was built with the help of the French and was opposed by the U.S.. The Israelis even went so far as to construct false passages and hallways in the Dimona reactor in order to deceive U.S. inspectors.

[unclesmedley]

Of course, the Americans had nothing to do with it.

[brutus948]

thank you for this piece. I'be been meaning to buy the book and everyone else should try also. I'm tired of seeing our mid east policy being drafted by Neocons at AIPAC.

[PADDYWHACK]

Lieberman is a homicidal nebbish and will get his war with Iran,the Dems have gone awol but there will be a long term price.The British Empire began to fall apart after the Boer war,which they won.It was achieved by a prolonged surge and Abu Graib-type tactics but it showed their weaknesses­.No army is going to be foolish enough to stand up in front of US forces,so unconventional methods have tied up the army for years.Iran will only cause a worldwide catastrophe in the economy and huge civilian casualties but it is unavoidable since W is on a mission from God ala John Belushi and Ayckroyd,who actually look a lot more sensible than these guys in retrospect.

[mommamia526]

Labels and off topic, paddywhack. I was reprimanded for using the name Allah. But you are allowed to invoke God and state that Bush is on a mission. We do not need to have WWIII, neither do we need to have an attack on Iran's military complex. What we do need is for Iran to allow full UN inspections, for Ahmadinejad to stop posturing and shouting his mouth off, and injecting himself into politics of neighboring countries. And I mean neighboring Arab countries as well. Remember, Ahmadinejad even came to the U.S. in person and expected to be invited - did not happen. Ahmadinejad needs to take care of Iran and its economy, and then the U.S. can do what is sorely needed here, taking care of infrastructure, universal healthcare, education, and more. Again, middle east reports state that Ahmadinejad has retracted some of his rhetoric, had discussions in Syria and with Fatah. In discussions with Fatah he encouraged further terrorist acts against Israel. Israel handed Gaza over to the PA, and we all know what is going on there. Kassams fly into Sderot daily, and not only there. So, should Israel just keep on taking that, because, after all, they are *jews*? One day something is going to give. They should stop inciting war, Fatah, Hamas, Ahmadinejad, et al., because one of these days they WILL get the response they are aching for. There is a breaking point for everyone. Gaza is a separate State under the PA, waging war.

[straightshooter]

Mommamia

Give it a rest. You are grossly un/misinformed. Why isn't Israel subject to nuclear weapons inspections? It has refused to sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and rebuffed all requests for inspections, including those of the US. According to Janes, it has over 200 nuclear warheads and missiles capable of delivering them anywhere in the Arab world and far beyond. I also remind you that according to respected writer, Seymour Hersh, during the 1973 war Israel threatened to use its nuclear weapons against Egypt unless Nixon replaced all the weaponry Egypt had destroyed in the Sina. Nixon complied, giving in to nuclear blackmail.

You state "Gaza is a separate State under the PA, waging war." In fact, under international law and in reality, the Gaza Strip is still "belligerently occupied" by Israel because Israel controls its entrances, exits, airspace and seashore. In effect, the Gaza Strip is one massive outdoor prison under Israel's boot. This is all so elementary, basic knowledge to people who seriously pursue the subject using authoriative reliable sources.

[PADDYWHACK]

Mommamia I see your point,I believe these Neocons and their allies are motivated in part by biblical tenets at odds with the Enlightenment for 250 years.I spent a lot of time in Europe and these guys would have to register as fortune tellers.I don't propose to solve the problems of the ME but using the bible doesn't help,why not use a Zen text.Ameri­ca has lost any pretense of honest broker status and Iran needs nukes to prevent invasion by W and the bible thumpers,I think he's clueless and we'll all live to regret his decisions tho he will not due to his ignorance of just about everything

[newpantaloons]

Mommamia526

Good Grief! It seems from most all of your posts that you are constantly griping about being persecuted. First, it was always about 'women' and how they were (are) repressed by men. How you "are a woman and should keep your mouth shut". No one said anything about you should keep your mouth shut because you are a woman. Now, it is about the state of Isreal and how they are so repressed by their neighbors (??). "Straightshooter" is right. You need to give it a rest. Quit feeling so sorry for your position in life. Do you really feel like we should waste an entire nation because you hate Ahmandinejad? I am sure you can't possibly mean that? Iran is a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and has the LAWFUL right as a signatory, to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. They have consistantly said that is what they are doing. You can disbelieve them if you want, but that is not a basis for launching a pre-emptive strike against another sovereign nation.

[Justtellthetruth]

I guess I'll get in line here to call you on your BS as well, Mommamia.

First, Pakistan, which is suppossed to be our ally, Harbors Osama Bin Laden, his leadership and many followers. They harborMullah Omar and the leadership of the Taliban, and many followers, and many top brass in the pakistani army are sympathetic to both groups. Paksitan harbors, AQ Khan, the man who sold Nuclear tech to both North korea and Iran (and god knows who else). Pakistan HAS nukes and is overflowing with radicals that hate the US and Israel, many of whom are in areas that are under their own control.

That being said, Iran has not atacked another nation for about 250 years. They wont have nukes for years to come (if ever). They never said that they want to wipe ISRAEL off the map, but rather that they would like to see the REGIME removed there. As mentioned in other posts, Israel has 200 nukes and the absolute protection of the US. Iran, after they build a few (without ever being able to test them) would be insuring their own total destruction were they to ever acta against israel.

To suggest that Iran poses any threat that even comes close to that which Paksistan poses is simply a bald faced lie, and Pakistan is our ALLY!!!

Lets get to the heart of the matter. The settlers and their supporters are the enemey of Israel, the US, and Palestine, in that they could care less how many Israelis, Americans (ie 9/11) or Palestinians die as a result of their fanatical actions. They need to be cut off financially and diplomatically, and if that means that we cut off Israel first in order to facilitate that, then so be it.
The settlers and their backers are morally reprehensible, a threat to world peace, and, despite all the "Wiping" talk about Iran, are the only ones who have been engaging in "Wiping" behavior, which they have been doing for the last 40 years.

[NoContest]

So, to sum this up, the United States is going to war to destroy Iran on behalf of Israel. And this has been planned and predestined for almost a decade.

Is it worth it. What is the downside?

Do you think there will be any substantial retaliation against the Unied States of Israel or is it that the nation with the most powerful weapons and arny wins....

[avergejoe]

So tell me No..., would sit back if your country was bombed by another!

[avergejoe]

What's worse, ALL the MSM presidential 'frontrunners' are in on the plan!
As is the MSM.

where is abe when you need him?

[TheIndependenceParty]

Abe was killed by an American Born terrorist, ... one of many.

[mommamia526]

There is no United States of Israel. You are overestimating a small nation. The purpose and goal of Israel is to have a place, a nation, where people can live a life without further attacks, practicing their faith, do science, and have their own culture. Lobbies have money and influence, and there are many of them doing the real work of government in Washington, D.C., and most of these lobbies have nothing to do with nations, not even Israel. Instead of blaming Israel, or the jews, try changing the way government operates in Washington D.C. One idea, multiple parties, no money involved in elections, free tube and radio time, direct voting without an electoral College, and no underhanded lobbying deals of any kind.

[avergejoe]

Then there was the case, reported in the NYT, of the isreali, marc rich, who was convicted of embezzling from Americans and 'donating' the money to isreal. Clinton pardoned him. why? Because he helped isreal. rich's lawyer? Scooter Libby. Its a small world after all!

ISTEVE.COM­:
Clinton argued in defense of his pardon for Rich:

(8) finally, and importantly, many present and former high-ranking Israeli officials of both major political parties and leaders of Jewish communities in America and Europe urged the pardon of Mr. Rich because of his contributions and services to Israeli charitable causes, to the Mossad's efforts to rescue and evacuate Jews from hostile countries,"

Barak described Rich as a "Jewish American businessman" who was "making a lot of philanthropic contributions to Israeli institutions and activities like education.­"

Barak acknowledged that Rich had "violated certain rules of the game in the United States." But "I just wanted to let you know that here he is highly appreciated," the Israeli leader said.

One of Rich's most prominent gifts was to Birthright Israel, the $210 million Jerusalem-based partnership between Jewish communities around the world, the Israeli government and Diaspora Jewish philanthropists that has brought 40,000 young Jews on trips to Israel since 2000. As one of its philanthropic partners, Rich pledged $5 million to the program.

Rich, who has renounced his American citizenship, has been more modest in his giving to programs in the United States — such gifts total only $3.7 million...

Prominent individuals associated with Birthright Israel wrote to the president urging him to pardon Rich. So did the ADL's national director, Abraham Foxman, whose organization received $250,000 from Rich. Foxman later declared at a press conference that it had "probably" been a mistake to lobby Clinton for the pardon...

A new round of publicity regarding the pardon appeared to be avoided late last month, when U.S. District Judge Gladys Kessler upheld the right of the Bush administration to deny public access to records on the 177 pardons and commutations Clinton approved on his last day in office.

[midtown]

"The purpose and goal of Israel is to have a place, a nation, . . . .where people can live a life . . . "

. . . and practice apartheid.

[pakiman]

I think what you mean to say is "The purpose and goal of Israel is to have a place, a nation, where ZIONIST JEWS can live a life without further attacks, practicing their faith, do science, and have their own culture.

[choirgirl]

i gotta agree with you momma, well said. and, when people scream that it is anti semitic to criticise israel, i feel i must remind people that they have to separate 'the jews' from Israel. not all american jews agree with the israeli positions. not all israelis agree. but israel is more than just 'the jews'.... that smacks of antisemitism. so if the united states starts WWIII, it will be because of israel??? [underlying: and those jews].

As Judith Butler has written: It will not do to equate Jews with Zionists or Jewishness with Zionism …. It is one thing to oppose Israel in its current form and practices or, indeed, to have critical questions about Zionism itself, but it is quite another to oppose "Jews" or assume that all "Jews" have the same view; that they are all in favor of Israel, identified with Israel, or represented by Israel …. To say that all Jews hold a given view on Israel or are adequately represented by Israel, or, conversely, that the acts of Israel, the state, adequately stand for the acts of all Jews, is to conflate Jews with Israel and, thereby, to commit an anti-Semitic reduction of Jewishness­.>>>

[unclesmedley]

"The purpose and goal of Israel is to have a place, a nation, where people can live a life without further attacks, practicing their faith, do science, and have their own culture."

Then they should have taken property that was not already occupied.

[pygmy]

The most intelligent and well written assessment I've ever seen on the outsized influence of Israel on our foreign policy. To discuss Israel in these terms immediately brings cries of Anti-semitism. Excellent, excellent piece. Good luck with the crap that will be hurled at you Mr. Bromwich, You are a brave man.

And good luck to all of us, with these sick and perverted madmen that are in charge of both Israel and America. Even if 10 million peple hit the streets in protest, would it matter? Have you ever tried to reason with a madman?

Jail Cheney First.

[avergejoe]

But it was g-d who told the isrealis to do it!

[mommamia526]

No, it was Allah who told Ahmadinejad to put up his fists, declare that he had all the centrifuges he needs for full speed nuclear production, end last week, and before that to threaten to wipe Israel and the U.S. off the face of this earth, and not necessarily in that order. And Allah spoke to Ahmadinejad via the Iranian muslim clergy. Ahmadinejad is just the strangely outfitted small puppet they manipulate with strings. Words have consequences, and neither Israel nor the U.S. should be expected to sit around, take a nuclear attack, and then say thank you, I needed that! Preemptive strike is allowed by law and by God, whether you name God or not. It is only women who must sit around and make nice and be obedient, and Israelis nor Americans are all women. Joe do not emasculate yourself on behalf of Allah.