Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Taboo Thwarts Candor on Israel/Iran
Israel: Elephant Not Allowed in the Room
Participants at an otherwise informative discussion on "Iran at a Crossroads" at the Senate on Wednesday seemed at pains to barricade the doors against the proverbial elephant being admitted into the room - in this case, Israel.
This, despite the fact that the agenda virtually dictated that the elephant be allowed in. The cavernous hearing room also could have accommodated it - however awkward and untidy the atmosphere might have become.
Otherwise, as was entirely predictable, the discussion would be lacking a crucial element. Which is exactly what happened. Which is exactly what always happens.
The tongue-tied impediment displayed by some of the presenters can be chalked up mostly to the all-too-familiar timidity on Capitol Hill to countenance candid discussion of any issue on which Israel can be revealed to be a fly in the ointment.
Sen. Carl Levin, D-Michigan, obtained use of the hearing room for the organizers of the discussion, the thoroughly professional National Iranian American Council headed by Professor Trita Parsi. This is to Levin's credit, in my view.
At the same time, Sen. Levin holds the all-time-high record for PAC contributions from groups affiliated with the self-described "America's Pro-Israel Lobby" - the powerful American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). I'm guessing that Levin's office may have asked that some caution be exercised, so that it would be difficult for Fox News to misrepresent the proceedings as "Israel bashing."
Setting the Stage
In any case, a truly distinguished panel launched a discussion on "The U.S. and Iran: Back to Confrontation?" which Professor Parsi moderated. The panelists began by setting a fact- and reality-based context, which in turn raised hopes of a no-holds-barred discussion. Their observations included, or implied, the following:
-The status of the U.S. as the "world's sole remaining superpower" may have "turned a corner." In many key respects, China, India, Russia and Brazil now represent a rival "superpower" strong enough to thwart American policy objectives.
-The consequences of nuclear weapons proliferation in the general area of the Persian Gulf would be so truly ominous that "everything imaginable" should be done to head it off.
-The main "positive" of robust sanctions against a country like Iran is simply that those who impose them can feel good. It would be difficult, if not impossible, to target sanctions on the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps without hurting the Iranian people at large.
-The experience of the past several years demonstrates that the U.S. and Iran share - and can act on - a range of common interests (in Afghanistan, for example). Neither country would profit from hostilities involving Iran.
-Iran is nowhere near a nuclear weapon, so there is time to reconsider what guarantees could be offered to Tehran to dissuade it from pursuing a nuclear weapons option.
-No member of Congress has set foot in Iran since 1979.
No Discussion of Implications
With these observations on the table, it was as if the doors to the hearing room were clanked shut and bolted, lest the Israeli elephant be allowed to intrude. And this, despite a palpable yearning in the audience for the panelists to address uncomfortable questions like:
-If there are no intrinsic factors dictating implacable hostility between Iran and the U.S., how does one account for its persistence? What promotes, what feeds it?
There was, of course, the sad history of 1953 when the CIA and British intelligence engineered the overthrow of Iran's first democratically elected government, and the outrage of Iran's holding 52 American hostages for 444 days at the end of Jimmy Carter's presidency.
But aside from those incidents, could the mutual hostility today have anything to do with Israel and its ability to enlist the U.S. behind Israeli strategic objectives?
-Do the Iranian leaders see as contrived the oft-expressed concern that Iran might eventually obtain a nuclear weapon, when American officials do nothing about Israel's actual nuclear weapons, or for that matter, those of Pakistan and India?
-Is the real objective of Israel and, by extension, the U.S. the same as it was with respect to Iraq seven years ago - that is, "regime change"? (How I dislike using the euphemism in vogue for what we used to call overthrowing governments!)
Even Secretary of State Hillary Clinton let drop last month that, even if Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapon, this does not "directly" threaten the United States.
-Is it true, as one of the panelists asserted, that "No one believes that the Green (opposition) movement in Iran is supported by outside forces; that rather it is clearly an entirely indigenous, spontaneous movement?"
Into the memory hole went past news reports about the Bush administration earmarking $400 million to support covert operations designed to frustrate Iran's nuclear program and to destabilize its political system. Also unmentionable were troubling reports that the United States has helped "good" terrorist organizations, like Jundullah, to strike violent blows against Iran's regime.
-Is it a given, as one afternoon panelist suggested, that "Everyone knows that the Israelis would not use their considerable nuclear arsenal except in self-defense"? It seems that when Israel is mentioned in these affairs, commentary must be only in the most positive light; there can be no suggestion that Israel might use, say, bunker-busting tactical nukes to destroy hardened Iranian targets.
-Does the Israeli government honestly perceive an "existential threat" in Iran's possible acquisition of a few nuclear weapons against the 200-300 devices already in Israel's arsenal? If so, is Israel prepared to "defend itself" by attacking Iran's nuclear facilities, using the preventive-war justification which has long been a staple of Israeli policy, and was adopted kit and caboodle by Bush and Cheney?
-Are the Israelis counting on U.S. logistical support for such a preventive attack -intelligence and operational planning support of the kind that enabled its surgical strike on the Iraqi nuclear reactor at Osirak in 1981? Are they expecting the kind of political support the United States provided in the wake of Israel's September 2007 attack on a suspect nuclear-related facility being built in Syria?
-Why is it that former Ambassador Robert Hunter, now an adviser to RAND and himself a passionate opponent of nuclear proliferation, can endorse the idea of a "nuclear-free Middle East," and then with a wan smile simply throw up his hands lamenting that that's never going to happen. Why must this proposal be banned from the category of "everything imaginable," simply because "everyone is sure" that Israel would never go along?
-If Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu feels he can thumb his nose at the U.S. President (and Vice President) on the signal issue of Israeli settlements, is there reason to believe that Netanyahu is inclined to take into account repeated "please pleas" from the likes of Joint Chiefs Chairman Mike Mullen, who has warned the Israelis publicly that an attack on Iran would be a "big, big, big problem for all of us?"
-Was this week's chutzpah-laden Israeli announcement of new settlement construction in East Jerusalem - in the midst of a visit by Vice President Joe Biden - a case of what one might call "practice mouse trapping," to test whether the Obama administration really has the toughness to push back in a meaningful way?
Ambassador Hunter was accompanied on the afternoon panel by prolific writer, Professor Juan Cole of the University of Michigan, and Robert Malley, who served in senior positions at President Bill Clinton's National Security Council and is now Program Director for Middle East and North Africa at the International Crisis Group in Washington, D.C.
All three have a wealth of experience on the Middle East and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and this gave rise to eventually dashed expectations of a more candid discussion of several related issues as they impinge on Iranian interests.
There are, of course, limits to what can be covered in an hour and a quarter. Still, there did seem to be distinct reluctance to include Israel in any discussion of the political obstacles preventing sensible accommodation between Tehran and Washington.
No doubt the main obstacle can be traced to the timeworn "passionate attachment" of U.S. leaders to Israel's perceived interests, and the tendency to view them as identical to those of the United States. This politically and emotionally sensitive issue needs to be addressed openly and without fear-in the interest of Israeli, as well as Iranian and American citizens.
If Not Now, When?
Granted, volunteering to sponsor such a discussion would be seen as the kiss of death for the vast majority of lawmakers. But can it be that there is no group, no think tank with courage enough to arrange such a forum? For it truly needs to be done, and quickly, somewhere - whether permitted in a Senate office building, or not.
Without free discussion and greater understanding, there is virtually no prospect of lessened tensions. Rather, the volatile situation seems likely to get still worse, and could even include an Israeli provocation and/or a preventive strike on Iran.
Here Admiral Mullen is right; such actions would constitute a "big, big, big problem for all of us."
28 Comments so far
Show AllIsrael owns the congress and the white house and their american agents or the neocons hijacked american foreign policy leading directly to the invasion and occupation of Iraq. There is bipartisan support in washington for an Israeli foreign policy which demands that Iran renounce its right to defend themselves which they could never accept.
Just one observation" According to McGovern, the 1953 coup was "sad" but the hostage-taking was an "outrage." Hmmmm
"I'm guessing that Levin's office may have asked that some caution be exercised, so that it would be difficult for Fox News to misrepresent the proceedings as 'Israel bashing.'"
Fox News will misrepresent an event even if it doesn't take place.
It appears that we can describe the current corporate media as a neighborhood with Fox News as the vicious bully and the other corporate outlets as quivering cowards.
q
Cut them off
and
campaign finance reform.
Otherwise, expect the US to further spiral downward while shouldering the unsustainable burden of serving Israeli interests at the costs of US lives and treasure.
Absolutely. Let them stand alone. No US aid of any sort. I'm tired of living in an Israeli colony, I'm tired of our leaders deferring to their leadership in decisions that effect our populace.
The "please pleas." What a tragedy has befallen the formerly greatest, freest, richest nation on earth. Our politics are in shambles, and still we wait for crumbs of hope from voices like Mullen's. Please pleas. What an absurdity Washington has become, completely incapable of operating in the interests of the people they Constitutionally represent.
oh yes, pitchfork....God bless the greatest nation on earth. The greatness of the mighty one. How sad that the u.s. is so weak. And after all the grace that we have bestowed upon the planet, until this awful moment of castration.....
We are certainly the freest and richest nation upon the earth. And we have the greatest health care as well. And educational system. And not to forget the mightiest of militaries.
and your tears shall surely fall upon the fertile soil and water the lush gardens which the angels tend.
- There was, of course, the sad history of 1953 -
There was also the sad history of 1988. We would do well not to forget.
'The aircraft, an Airbus A300B2 operated by Iran Air as IR655, was flying from Bandar Abbas, Iran, to Dubai, UAE, when it was destroyed by the U.S. Navy's guided missile cruiser USS Vincennes, killing all 290 passengers and crew aboard, including 66 children
The men of the Vincennes were all awarded Combat Action Ribbons for completion of their tours in a combat zone. Lustig, the air-warfare coordinator, received the Navy Commendation Medal, -
The US government never admitted wrongdoing, and did not accept responsibility nor submit an apology to the Iranian government'.
Our government did a really despicable bit of an attempted cover up by insisting that the Iranians brought bodies from mortuaries and dumped them in the water to inflate the death count.
The invasion of Iraq had 2 written goals:
(Public Law 107-243): The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to —
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq.'
Americans went to war to enforce UN S.C. resolutions and they don't even know it.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.
UN Sec. Res. 242 -> (i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict*.
For all to see, America's hypocrisy and acceptance of Israel's exceptionalism (they don't need to obey the law because they're 'special').
* the West Bank, Golan Heights and Shebaa farms have still not been given up, despite repeated US threats of invasion to enforce Int'l law (ha ha ha ha ha).
Resolution 242 isn't "regarding Iraq", is it?
But I would say that Hamas and Hezbollah are working on enforcing that one. Not that they care about western legal affectations. The US has done much to delegitimize international law, both through brute force externally, and through the discreditation, through domestic progaganda, of the United Nations and ratified treaties.
Ditto
Somehow they got it right in the EU and south America in regards to israhell:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/7424685/Anti-Semitism-rising-worldwide-US-report-finds.html
This view of increasing world wide anit-israhell and anti-zionism violence was reported by the US State Department and was reported in the UK newspaper the Telegraph. Good luck finding this report in any US paper.
Hey, Hillary, do you get the drift now?
That link didn't work. I used this one: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/7424685/Anti-Semitism-rising-worldwide-US-report-finds.html.
Sadly from the description in the article, the report in question appears to be designed to reinforce the lie that criticism of Israel and zionism equates to hatred of Jews.
If so, then our State Department has decided to serve the hasbarites.
q
Any Israeli attack on Iran would need direct American logistical and military assistance. First they would need American satellite imagery for targeting Iran's nuclear sights. Second, the Israeli Air Force would need the use of US Air Force KC-135 in flight refueling tankers to make the round trip flight from Israel to Iran and back. Also the United States would probably deploy an E-3 AWAC plane to give the Israeli fighters radar cover. So any attack on Iran by Israel is not going to happen without the direct complicity of the United States.
So when FOX NEWS and CNN report about the daring Israeli air raid on the Iranian nuclear facilities, don't act surprised when the Iranians retaliate against us. Probably against our troops in Iraq.
On top of all of this would be the fact that the Israeli's would be using American built F-15E Strike Eagles or F-16's and American made bunker buster bombs to carry out the mission. Kind of makes it hard for us to say that we had nothing to do with such an attack, wouldn't you say?
McGovern's article is helpful and informative, but in the end is marred by his usual reformism ("liberalism"). Concludes he:" No doubt the main obstacle can be traced to the timeworn 'passionate attachment' of U.S. leaders to Israel's perceived interests, and the tendency to view them as identical to those of the United States. This politically and emotionally sensitive issue needs to be addressed openly and without fear-in the interest of Israeli, as well as Iranian and American citizens."
This conclusion would have us believe that the "main obstacle" to a peaceable Middle East is an unfortunate US emotional disorder ("passionate attachment") whose concealment is not in "the interest of Israeli . . . and American citizens."
In fact the root of the problem is systemic, namely, imperialism in the shape of the longstanding US-Zionist alliance for domination of the Middle East. And it is very much in the "interest" of the imperialists involved to conceal the sordid system being enforced. That's why there is no free speech in official USA when it comes to Zionism. (The fate of Norman Finklestein is instructive here.) "Citizens" who are not imperialists do not count; and if they raise a ruckus are easily dismissed by all the usual slanders (anti-Semitic, unpatriotic, etc.).
Until McGovern learns that the evils that he decries are evils of corporate capitalism/imperialism as a world system, his articles will raise false hopes of solution under the present system; just as the corporate media sow false hopes of a just Palestinian solution under Zionism (the famous Peace Process, which never brings peace because it never allows justice).
Then again, that is what reformists do, is it not?
Follow the money. Forty to fifty percent of US billionaires are Jewish, as various sources on Google report. That's a lot of influence, no?
I wonder what the other half of the u.s. billionaires are up to?
Good points,soloduff.
Kudos to your mention of capitalism, but I do not believe McGovern is properly classified as "liberal" in the sense of current popular American usage.
bardamu: Your criticism is noted, but I cannot correct myself until you state the reasoning behind your criticism.
I generalize the common acceptation of "liberal" as synonymous with "bourgeois reformist"--the correct term, which is why I put "liberalism" in inverted commas. Bourgeois reformism proceeds under the illusion that the evils of capitalism/imperialism can be reformed away while keeping the corporate capitalist/imperialist system. History shows that this claim is an illusion, but one that is not diminished by its falsehood. Thus it is an ideological phenomenon, specifically an ideological defense of corporate capitalism/imperialism. (Ideological phenomena are social psychology's version of "faith-based" compulsions, which persist in asserting vast claims, facts notwithstanding. Belief in the supernatural is a textbook example.)
My characterization of bourgeois reformism embraces the entire spectrum of what in popular usage are regarded as "liberals," or "liberal policies." Obama is a liberal insofar as he pretends to deliver reform ("change we can believe in") under the aegis of the existing socioeconomic system. The luminaries at "The Nation" magazine are liberals insofar as they support Obama under the explicit claim that he is a "reform" candidate who needs only to be appropriately nudged to do the right thing. Keynesians (such as Joseph Stiglitz) are liberals because they claim that they can solve the economic woes of capitalism while retaining the capitalist system. Michael Moore is a liberal because, as he recently announced, he thinks that if Obama hired him as Chief of Staff (in place of Rahm Emanuel) fundamental improvements in life under capitalism would result. Author McGovern is a liberal because, as I demonstrated in my post, he characterizes US/Israeli evils as rooted in a vaguely referenced emotional disorder instead of in the systemic factor--namely, the longstanding the US/Israeli imperialist alliance. Ergo, McGovern promotes the illusion that the evils that he decries can be solved under the aegis of the regnant capitalist/imperialist system.
This is an illusion that McGovern regularly peddles, as when he proposes reforms of the "intelligence" agencies without even mentioning the imperialist system served by these agencies, and inspiring their "excesses." --Which is, by the way, why liberal "intelligence reform" never works for long.
Great post soloduff,
And I just can't argue with any of it, even though I want to. You seem to want a Jesus Christ to stand up and lead us, but he'd be hung on a cross by morning. Maybe "liberal" is the wrong word since it's been perverted by Obama, the Dems and Faux News. Maybe "Progressive" is the title we all should aspire to. For example, I'm a Left-Libertarian, who can't quite bring himself to admit that he's a Libertarian-Socialist. Individuals like Ralph Nader and Norm Chomsky should be our true progressive leaders; Do you agree?
In fairness to Ray McGovern, he did mention the root of the problem: AIPAC. AIPAC is not a "vaguely referenced emotional disorder" is it? It's more like a cancer that disrupts and in fact eliminates the concept of "self government" upon which the USA is founded. Ray dances around the elephants in the room out of necessity I would wager. When one is in the Mafia ballroom, one has to be careful how one dances and with whom. One must not get drunk and talk about family secrets.
Ray dances very well, imho (Read between the lines).
TJ
"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." - Thomas Jefferson
The fact that Zionism is causing anti-semitism to surge in America and globally is not lost on and progressive jews like Chomsky. War profits seem to trump the negatives and Zionists are so secure in their domination of America that they can slap our VP in the face and get away with it.
"There was, of course, the sad history of 1953 when the CIA and British intelligence engineered the overthrow of Iran's first democratically elected government"
...for the Big Oil companies...and installed the torturing Shah....
Why would Iran hold a grudge about a little thing like that?
I am sure if some foreign country overthrew the US government, and installed a puppet that bent the economy to favour the invaders...you guys wouldn't mind, wouldya?
Until the White House disavows their groveling in front of the Israeli propaganda organizations and has a purge at the State Department to get rid of the Israeli sympathizers who sabotage any meaningful conversations with the Iranians, nothing will change.
ILLUSIONS -- WASTELAND OF MEANINGLESS FICTION
There Ray goes again, giving all the essential facts, voicing no opinion, and then asking such intelligent questions. Quite the reverse of corporate media, where its all opinion usually void of facts.
And though my opinions are most always in harmony with Ray's, I could never quite see the logic of including Israel in any discussion involving reality, the real world as it transpires in real time and real space. Like asking the mirage of a lake in the desert, why it lured so many lost souls to a slow agonizing death.
For a big bunch of Zionist Christians and Jews invaded Palestine in 1948, and then out of thin air created this illusion that just because they had the deadly force needed to establish a dictatorship they call Israel, that we must except the fairy tale the now exists Israel.
Reality is, from AD 110 when the Roman army leveled Jerusalem flat to the grown, when not one brick or stone was piled on top of another, until AD 1900, all those 1800 years, less then 6% of those in the promised land were of the Jewish faith.
Thanks Ray,
The problem as your collegue Victor Marchetti also points out is AIPAC:
Controversies
Former Senator William Fulbright, in the 1970s, and former senior CIA official Victor Marchetti, in the 1980s, contended that AIPAC should have registered under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA).[25] FARA requires those who receive funds or act on behalf of a foreign government to register as a foreign agent. AIPAC is a registered American lobbying group funded by private donations, and maintains it receives "no financial assistance" from Israel or any other foreign group.[26]
In 2006, Representative Betty McCollum of Minnesota demanded an apology from AIPAC, claiming an AIPAC representative had described her vote against the Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act of 2006 as "support for terrorists." McCollum stated that AIPAC representatives would not be allowed in her office until she received a written apology for the comment.[27] AIPAC disputed McCollum's claim, and McCollum has since declared the incident over.[28]
[edit]Steiner resignation
In 1992, AIPAC president David Steiner was forced to resign after he was recorded boasting about his political influence in obtaining aid for Israel. Steiner also claimed that he had
met with (then Bush U.S. Secretary of State) Jim Baker and I cut a deal with him. I got, besides the $3 billion, you know they're looking for the Jewish votes, and I'll tell him whatever he wants to hear ... Besides the $10 billion in loan guarantees which was a fabulous thing, $3 billion in foreign, in military aid, and I got almost a billion dollars in other goodies that people don't even know about.[29]
Steiner also claimed to be "negotiating" with the incoming Clinton administration over who Clinton would appoint as Secretary of State and Secretary of the National Security Agency. Steiner stated that AIPAC had "a dozen people in [the Clinton] campaign, in the headquarters... in Little Rock, and they're all going to get big jobs."[29]
NY real estate developer Haim Katz told The Washington Times that he taped the conversation because "as someone Jewish, I am concerned when a small group has a disproportionate power. I think that hurts everyone, including Jews. If David Steiner wants to talk about the incredible, disproportionate clout AIPAC has, the public should know about it."[30]
[edit]Espionage allegations
Main article: Lawrence Franklin espionage scandal
In April 2005, AIPAC policy director Steven Rosen and AIPAC senior Iran analyst Keith Weissman were fired by AIPAC amid an FBI investigation into whether they passed classified U.S. information received from Franklin on to the government of Israel. They were later indicted for illegally conspiring to gather and disclose classified national security information to Israel,[31][32]. AIPAC agreed to pay the legal fees for Weissman's defense through appeal if necessary,[33] but charges were subsequently dropped.[34]
In May 2005, the Justice Department announced that Lawrence Anthony Franklin, a U.S. Air Force Reserves colonel working as a Department of Defense analyst at the Pentagon in the office of Douglas Feith, had been arrested and charged by the FBI with providing classified national defense information to Israel. The six-count criminal complaint identified AIPAC by name and described a luncheon meeting in which, allegedly, Franklin disclosed top-secret information to two AIPAC officials.[35][36]
Franklin pleaded guilty to passing government secrets to Rosen and Weissman and revealed for the first time that he also gave classified information directly to an Israeli government official in Washington. On January 20, 2006, he was sentenced to 151 months (almost 13 years) in prison and fined $10,000. As part of the plea agreement, Franklin agreed to cooperate in the larger federal investigation.[37][38]
Criticism
Protesters at AIPAC conference in Washington, DC, May 2005
AIPAC has been criticized as being misrepresentative of American Jews who support Israel and that AIPAC is solely in favor of right-wing Israeli policy and viewpoints. [41] [42].
Among the best-known critical works about AIPAC is The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, by University of Chicago professor John Mearsheimer and Harvard University Kennedy School of Government professor Stephen Walt. In the working paper and resulting book they accuse AIPAC of being "the most powerful and best known" component of a larger pro-Israel lobby that distorts American foreign policy. They write:[4]
"AIPAC's success is due to its ability to reward legislators and congressional candidates who support its agenda, and to punish those who challenge it. ... AIPAC makes sure that its friends get strong financial support from the myriad pro-Israel PACs. Those seen as hostile to Israel, on the other hand, can be sure that AIPAC will direct campaign contributions to their political opponents. ... The bottom line is that AIPAC, which is a de facto agent for a foreign government, has a stranglehold on the U.S. Congress. Open debate about U.S. policy towards Israel does not occur there, even though that policy has important consequences for the entire world."
AIPAC has also been the subject of criticism by prominent politicians including Representative Dave Obey of Wisconsin,[43] former Senator Mike Gravel,[44] and former Representative Cynthia McKinney.[45]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aipac
Cheers,
TJ
Even though Mr. McGovern worked for the CIA for 27 years, and is, therefore,himself, the devil's spawn,he is, of course, spot on about the utterly inexplicable stranglehold which Israel has over Washington, D.C. Is this gutless nation really one and the same with that which fought Japan and Germany (with a great deal of help from our friends), and is forever creating bloodshed around the world for the benefit of that self-same Israel and oil companies and bankers? Why are we so frail and helpless when faced with the big bad Israeli wolf? Would someone kindly spell out,in detail,how this tiny drainage ditch in the desert came to control the USA with the snap of it's blood stained fingers? And, if it's not asking too much, could you do so before the world blows up, perhaps to allow for an intervention of some sort.