Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
The Real Aim of Israel’s Bomb Iran Campaign
Reuel Marc Gerecht's screed justifying an Israeli bombing attack on Iran coincides with the opening of the new Israel lobby campaign marked by the introduction of House Resolution 1553 expressing full support for such an Israeli attack.
What is important to understand about this campaign is that the aim of Gerecht and of the right-wing government of Benjamin Netanyahu is to support an attack by Israel so that the United States can be drawn into direct, full-scale war with Iran.
That has long been the Israeli strategy for Iran, because Israel cannot fight a war with Iran without full U.S. involvement. Israel needs to know that the United States will finish the war that Israel wants to start.
Gerecht openly expresses the hope that any Iranian response to the Israeli attack would trigger full-scale U.S. war against Iran. "If Khamenei has a death-wish, he'll let the Revolutionary Guards mine the strait, the entrance to the Persian Gulf," writes Gerecht. "It might be the only thing that would push President Obama to strike Iran militarily...." Gerecht suggest that the same logic would apply to any Iranian "terrorism against the United States after an Israeli strike," by which we really means any attack on a U.S. target in the Middle East. Gerecht writes that Obama might be "obliged" to threaten major retaliation "immediately after an Israeli surprise attack."
That's the key sentence in this very long Gerecht argument. Obama is not going to be "obliged" to join Israeli aggression against Iran unless he feels that domestic political pressures to do so are too strong to resist. That's why the Israelis are determined to line up a strong majority in Congress and public opinion for war to foreclose Obama's options.
In the absence of confidence that Obama would be ready to come into the war fully behind Israel, there cannot be an Israeli strike.
Gerecht's argument for war relies on a fanciful nightmare scenario of Iran doling out nuclear weapons to Islamic extremists all over the Middle East. But the real concern of the Israelis and their lobbyists, as Gerecht's past writing has explicitly stated, is to destroy Iran's Islamic regime in a paroxysm of U.S. military violence.
Gerecht first revealed this Israeli-neocon fantasy as early as 2000, before the Iranian nuclear program was even taken seriously, in an essay written for a book published by the Project for a New American Century. Gerecht argued that, if Iran could be caught in a "terrorist act," the U.S. Navy should "retaliate with fury". The purpose of such a military response, he wrote, should be to "strike with truly devastating effect against the ruling mullahs and the repressive institutions that maintain them."
And lest anyone fail to understand what he meant by that, Gerecht was more explicit: "That is, no cruise missiles at midnight to minimize the body count. The clerics will almost certainly strike back unless Washington uses overwhelming, paralyzing force."
In 2006-07, the Israeli war party had reason to believed that it could hijack U.S. policy long enough to get the war it wanted, because it had placed one of its most militant agents, David Wurmser, in a strategic position to influence that policy.
We now know that Wurmser, formerly a close adviser to Benjamin Netanyahu and during that period Vice President Dick Cheney's main adviser on the Middle East, urged a policy of overwhelming U.S. military force against Iran. After leaving the administration in 2007, Wurmser revealed that he had advocated a U.S. war on Iran, not to set back the nuclear program but to achieve regime change.
"Only if what we do is placed in the framework of a fundamental assault on the survival of the regime will it have a pick-up among ordinary Iranians," Wurmser told The Telegraph. The U.S. attack was not to be limited to nuclear targets but was to be quite thorough and massively destructive. "If we start shooting, we must be prepared to fire the last shot. Don't shoot a bear if you're not going to kill it."
Of course, that kind of war could not be launched out of the blue. It would have required a casus belli to justify a limited initial attack that would then allow a rapid escalation of U.S. military force. In 2007, Cheney acted on Wurmser's advice and tried to get Bush to provoke a war with Iran over Iraq, but it was foiled by the Pentagon.
As Wurmser was beginning to whisper that advice in Cheney's ear in 2006, Gerecht was making the same argument in The Weekly Standard:
The idea of waging a U.S. war of destruction against Iran is obvious lunacy, which is why U.S. military leaders have strongly resisted it both during the Bush and Obama administrations. But Gerecht makes it clear that Israel believes it can use its control of Congress to pound Obama into submission. Democrats in Congress, he boasts, "are mentally in a different galaxy than they were under President Bush." Even though Israel has increasingly been regarded around the world as a rogue state after its Gaza atrocities and the commando killings of unarmed civilians on board the Mavi Marmara, its grip on the U.S. Congress appears as strong as ever.Bombing the nuclear facilities once would mean we were declaring war on the clerical regime. We shouldn't have any illusions about that. We could not stand idly by and watch the mullahs build other sites. If the ruling mullahs were to go forward with rebuilding what they'd lost--and it would be surprising to discover the clerical regime knuckling after an initial bombing run--we'd have to strike until they stopped. And if we had any doubt about where their new facilities were (and it's a good bet the clerical regime would try to bury new sites deep under heavily populated areas), and we were reasonably suspicious they were building again, we'd have to consider, at a minimum, using special-operations forces to penetrate suspected sites.
Moreover, polling data
for 2010 show that a majority of Americans have already been
manipulated into supporting war against Iran - in large part because
more than two-thirds of those polled have gotten the impression that
Iran already has nuclear weapons. The Israelis are apparently hoping to
exploit that advantage. "If the Israelis bomb now, American public
opinion will probably be with them," writes Gerecht. "Perhaps decisively
so." Netanyahu
must be feeling good about the prospects for pressuring Barack Obama to
join an Israeli war of aggression against Iran. It was Netanyahu,
after all, who declared in 2001,
"I know what America is. America is a thing you can move very easily,
move it in the right direction. They won't get in the way."
127 Comments so far
Show AllAnother case of Israel using the US as its puppet and destroying us economically, politically and militarily.
Another case of Zionism making the world significantly worse as it pushes war and destruction.
De-Countrify Israel Now.
No worse than any other US ally? No worse than Mexico? New Zealand? Huh???
Wow.
Israel is pushing and fueling war in the most distressed part of the world, and you want to give them a pass on that. Disgusting.
Anyone who knows the long history of Zionism knows that the US was hardly a driving force in its creation, so you can put that lie to bed. And as for being a subsidiary, since when does a country wreck itself economically and militarily for a subsidiary - it's the other way around, so you can put that lie to bed also.
As for your jumbled defense of Zionism, there is as much sense there
as there was truth in your previous assertions.
Israel does NOT serve the interests of US imperialism (Remember the Liberty!!) and only serves itself at the expense of the US. The BEST thing that could happen to the US would be to...
De-Countrify Israel Now.
Zionism IS an imperialist philosophy. It is expansionist and aggressive. That's why Israelis have wanted to conflate it with Judaism, so that every time Israelis were criticized as a zionists, they could scream "anti-semitism" and hide behind the memory of the holocaust, which they abuse daily. If you don't want zionists in the US Congress, don't vote for them--even if they are progressive on domestic issues, like Grayson and Franken.
Well put.
Yes, but your underlying assumption that we have genuine democratic choice. The corporate-run Big Money system only allows super-wealthy corporate candidates.
To be crude: democracy in the USA is merely the world's most expensive public relations stunt.
You got nuthin' but name calling.
Told you so.
And you were right - that's all they got.
If I am not mistaken, you called me a Zionist too.
Would that be "Name Callin"? or was that a compliment?
If it's a compliment to you, then you're welcome.
Guess we're all "zionists" in so many ways.
ToT, I was using the term loosely.
No, there are many fine anti-Zionists on this site and in the world.
Nice counterpoints RichM... you must admit Tiredoftrolls got you on Israel being as bad as every other US ally though.
All of a sudden your sensitivity to name calling seems to have disappeared.
Strange, no?
True that.
A Minni-Me.
With 200 nukes under their control they weld a great amount of raw power.
And AIPAK is a very real control of Congress.
And Rahm Son of Irgun is a very real handler of OilBomber.
Does not Iran seem restrained considering the constant horrific threats it faces?
You've got it backward, perhaps intentionally so.
Israel has UNITED the Arabs
AGAINST the West
making ACCESS TO OIL LESS SECURE
and decreases our leverage there with every passing day as we suffer economically and militarily.
How you missed what is plainly happening in front of your face is amazing.
Of course, this is old news Troll.
We all know that Israel controls the world and is conspiring to exterminate all non-Jews and take over the world. Thanks for enlightening us poor ignorant slobs, your brilliantly detailed and well-referenced posts are most impressive. Are you working on your PhD dissertation on this subject?
Your snark is typical Zionist...
when you've lost all moral and rational arguments, try to bully and snark your way through.
It's sad
but sadder for the Palestinians who suffer under your brutal, slow genocide.
If Zionists had an ounce of shame among the lot of them
we wouldn't have to put up with posts like yours.
Since you are the only one who is not Zionist, you best get on a plane and head for the Occupied Territories. You will have your hands full defeating the Empire by yourself. Do you have a secret weapon? Can you stop a US-made Caterpillar armored bulldozer by your self? Please do share your secrets with us.
Otherwize, you are dismissed as an agent provocateur for the Hasbarists.
Great! If I'm defending Zionism, then we can all agree!
Both Zionists and Anti-Zionists agree:
DE-COUNTRIFY ISRAEL NOW!
It doesn't take much to whip up war hysteria in the United States driven by zionist democrats, born again republicans and the enormous profits to be made by defense contractors acting as policy experts on the complicit media all coming together as part of a massive campaign to whip up war fever and anti-foreigner hatred which usually takes only a few weeks to produce about 80% approval from the ignorant population. The softening up process is already is well underway.
I urge others to use the link in the article and read the rant by Gerecht (in the Weekly Standard - where else?).
While reading Gerecht's deranged litany of Iran's sins and repressions of its own people, I kept thinking "You could apply all of the same statements to Israel."
q
I'm wondering who is manipulating whom? It seems like the core issue is who controls mid-East oil, the West and the international oil corporations, or the countries that own the oil? We have demolished Iraq yet are we benefitting in any way--by more peace in the region or better access to oil? No, the oil companies are still ravaging the planet—even staking out new claims in the melting Arctic. Then there is China and others who need oil too. It seems that the entire conflict is rooted in manipulation of longstanding suspicions and enmity. Why? Is there not a Christian, Jew, Muslim who believes in their own creed? Have we lost sight of what it takes to survive and live as decent human beings? Everything seems guided by hatred and greed. If as parents this is what we teach our children, to kill or be killed, what would we expect tomorrow to bring? Already, so many people, especially those in positions of power are so focused on destruction, fear, war-making, even torture, it is sickening the hearts and mind of the whole world.
KB: Thank you for your post. It expresses the conscience that rises above identity politics/policies to a vision that might unite persons... since the alternative is the military-industrial global state.
Wow, the Soviet Union really screwed up. All they had to do was to build a wall of influence via campaign contributions, and take over our foreign policy like AIPAC has. They could have taken us over without spending all that money on military hardware. They still would not be as clever as Israel, which uses money we give them to buy our politicians via pressure groups like AIPAC. Until we figure out how to dismantle this grip of corruption, we'll continue as an Israeli puppet state and a source of surrogate armies that is condemned to fight on behalf of the most hated country on the planet.
I appreciate your sarcasm, but your logic is flawed. Israel is able to influence policy via AIPAC because it is an ALLY. The Soviets could never have been allies (once the common existential threat was eliminated) because their political ideology was diametrically opposed.
Israeli is an ally of no-one but itself. The US is Israeli's tool.
Remember the USS Liberty.
Throw off the yoke of AIPAC.
De-Countrify Israel Now.
One thing that white phosphorous Christians, such as Methodist Hillary Clinton, and white phosphorous Jews agree on is that they are white and that Palestinians, Iranians, and Arabs are not. This explains the news coverage of the Middle East by NPR, the New York Times, and Fox News. Who said racism is dead?
Hmm. Somehow my response to the first post by Frank Cash got memory-holed. I'll try to sum it up.
All the comments so far are bass-ackwards. Israel is the client state. Whatever they are doing is in service of their patrons, which are largely the US and Britain who formed and maintain them, but also NATO in general. They have been a going concern for over 60 years, and as such most definitely have self-interest that they promote, but they are not the seat of the Empire. AIPAC facilitates spin of Israeli self-interest into the fabric of American politics, but they do not direct American politics into anything that is not already in the American Empire's interest.
Unlike the "bad" client states that did not consistently do our bidding and paid the price (Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan snowballing now), Israel does our bidding. AIPAC makes sure of that. It is the United States that has, for three decades, openly wanted war with Iran to get it back as the client state it was between the time we overthrew Mossadeq and its own people overthrew our puppet, the Shah. We have baited Iran to give us even the flimsiest of justifications to attack them, but they're too clever. We have been grooming and greenlighting Israel to become the proxy instigator in the hope that we can trip up the Iranians, in their defensive reaction, to do things that could be sufficiently construed as concrete threats to American security, even if it's just the security of our forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. Again, this is not in any way to imply that Israel doesn't have its own interest in taking out Iranian nuclear development. That is in fact why they are the ideal proxy. Despite their self-interest, they need American approval to do it, because they won't do it until the Pentagon has the logistics of a potential American follow-up in place, and until the American capacity to re-supply Israel in case the action leads to wider Middle East war is ready to go. If it goes ahead, then what happens is America and Britain get Iran back -- and all its oil for their own oil corporations, as they did in Iraq -- and as thanks, Israel gets to keep and extend its American protective umbrella.
Hardly any American Jews belong to AIPAC. It is not the agency that speaks on politics on behalf of America's Jews. AIPAC is made up of a very small collection of extremely rich American Jews whose profit sources are those of the American Empire. All they're doing is making sure our government gives Israel A #1, super special client state status at all times, because they are, as I already mentioned, self-interested. AIPAC also operates in Israel to make sure Israel is always ready to do what's in the interests of the American Empire.
You can't change Israel without changing America first.
It is amazing how Zionists insist that day is night and black is white.
So according to this Zionist, "Hardly any American Jews" belong to the 'American Israeli Public Affairs Committee'. It must be all Swedish Lutherans or something.
Of course, two sentences after claiming that "Hardly any American Jews" belong to AIPAC, Steve Greenfield says, "AIPAC is made up of a very small collection of extremely rich American Jews..." because Zionists are just that brazen - tell a lie, contradict it, what is truth to a Zionist anyway.
And what do those rich Jews do, according to Steve Greenfield? "All they're doing is making sure our government gives Israel A #1, super special client state status at all times, because they are, as I already mentioned, self-interested."
And now we're supposed to believe that our escapades in the Middle East which are destroying our economy, our military, our world standing - IS IN THE INTEREST OF THE US? No, it's in the interest of Zionism and Israel.
You've got to be kidding. De-Countrify Israel Now.
Since you are armed with the facts, tell me. How many American Jews belong to AIPAC? And what is the median income and net worth of those members, compared to the median income and net worth of all American Jews?
I'll help you get started. AIPAC's website says it has 100,000 members. It's reasonable to deduce from info on their site and statements by prominent Christian leaders that some fair percentage of that total is not Jewish, and we can also deduce by the same techniques that not all its members are Americans. There are around 6.2 million Jews in America.
What a hypocrite and a Zionist (but I've repeated myself).
YOU'RE the one making an assertion
and then contradicting yourself
and then you come up with this lame analysis
and you ask ME to come up with proof.
Astounding. You Zionists have been so detached to reality and morality
you say anything and demand that we believe it.
De-Countrify Israel Now.
Your critique of Steve's post would carry a lot more weight without the name-calling.
Whenever you identify a bigot as such, they claim you're name calling.
Whenever you point out to a racist that they are a racist, they claim you're simply insulting them.
My points carry weight and what you call name-calling is simply how I see the truth. We can handle the truth. We don't need (how shall I say it to not offend anyone?)... non-truth tellers!
Thank you for seeing the weight of my argument.
Actually, his critique would carry more weight if he had any way to back it up. I couldn't care less about his name calling, and I didn't call him out on that. I called him out for making a declaration that's not supported by facts. I asked him to cite some. I cited some to support my claim that only a tiny percentage of American Jews belong to AIPAC. That is true. The reason he's calling me names is because there is nothing else he can do. People who use facts to support their positions get used to that, believe me.
Nuthin' but blowhard. You didn't prove a thing except how intellectually dishonest you Zionists are.
You didn't do anything but tap dance in the mud of your own making.
Bloody well said.
"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag, carrying a cross."
Sinclair Lewis, "It Cant Happen Here", 1935
When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in a shawl, carrying a bagel
Wow.
If Israel is client state of the US and is acting as per US dictates,then for which other close ally does the US provide such support? South Korea against North Korea? Pakistan against India? Taiwan against China ? Poland against Russia? All these countries,South Korea,Pakistan,Poland would not dare to attack it's enemy and hope to get US support.
The US's blind support to Israel is not rational or based on it's own interests.It is the result of a malign grouping of dark forces led by the Zionist lobby.This combination of forces is likely to lead the world to it's most destructive war.It must be opposed with all possible means.
But perhaps,just possible, there could be another reason the US is spoiling for a fight with Iran.The US thinks it will be an easy war,with low casualties,bombing Iran without engaging on land.It will make up for the defeat in Afghanistan which is definitely approaching.But if this is the assessment it is wrong.There will be massive bloodshed on both sides.Remember,Israel lost to the Hezbollah,fair and square.
I think that Steve Greenfield's analysis is far more accurate than your observation that "The US's blind support to Israel is not rational or based on it's own interests.It is the result of a malign grouping of dark forces led by the Zionist lobby." The "malign grouping" and "dark forces" language does remind me of classic anti-Semitism, although perhaps that was not your intention. As to your comparison of Israel with other US allies, you have to keep in mind Israel's strategic location in the heart of the Middle East. In any widespread war to protect access to oil, the US would need land bases in Israel, and this is the heart of the alliance. As with so much else, the dependence of our civilization on fossil fuels dictates US policy. This is not to say that the US may not fall, or be tricked into, into irrational actions such as an attack on Iran, but the foundations of the US-Israel alliance are rational to the extent that basing our whole way of life on fossil fuels is rational.
"In any widespread war to protect access to oil, the US would need land bases in Israel, and this is the heart of the alliance."
Does the USA have any bases in Israel? Is there a formal treaty of alliance between the USA and Israel?
The United States does have at least one base in Israel that I know of, and probably more, plus the permanent presence of security outposts associated with intelligence. It's not talked about much, but there is definitely at least one functioning full-time American base in Israel.
In addition, in 2002 when I was running for Congress against Maurice Hinchey (largely due to his support for the Patriot Act and invading Afghanistan), his Republican opponent was a 30-ish West Point grad whose CV included time as a helicopter pilot in Israel. I did not ask him where and on what mission, because at that time I assumed, as most people do, that the US does not fly missions within Israeli borders or base military personnel there, and I didn't want him giving me the "top secret" treatment. But it was on all his campaign literature and website. He lost by a wide margin, of course not nearly as wide as my own loss, but at least I beat the Right To Life candidate, and if the winner was determined by a votes-per-dollar basis, I'd have won by a landslide. But I digress. We have at least one functioning base openly known to Israelis, and there are probably more.
According to Wikipedia (a reasonably reliable source in my experience), an anti-missile battery with 120 troops. I've seen more US troops in an airport lounge in Ireland.
And the treaty?
I think we need to distinguish between the core values of the Jewish faith and the actions of those who claim to adhere to this faith but do not adopt these core values.Same with the Sermon on the Mount.The overwhelming majority of Christians do not follow the injunction to love and sacrifice and to lead a righteous life.Those who profess the Christian faith cannot accuse others of being anti Christian if they are criticised for acts which offend the universal sense of values and fair play.The same goes for Jews and every other group.
But there is a problem here which cannot be brushed aside by the charge of anti Semitism.The Jews,and probably no other religious group in the world,created a state only for themselves,driving out the people legally living on that land.They continue to oppress the Palestinians.This act has to be judged by prevailing,today's standards of law and morality.If by these standards,the Jews who set up the entity called Israel and their supporters are at fault and they are identified as being driven by a Jewish striving,then it is NOT anti Semitism to criticise these Jews for their actions ,actions which they themselves proclaim,mistakenly,as arising out of their Jewish identity.Nobody would criticise them as Jews if they did not justify their actions on the ground that they were Jews.You cannot have it both ways.Nobody is criticizing the Jewish faith,or the Christian faith or the Muslim faith or the Hindu faith as revealed in their essential teachings but only those who pervert their religious teaching to oppress and dispossess others.
As for anti Semitism,the Palestinians are the Semitic people.So perhaps the true anti Semites are the Israelis !
Is it right for a country,with nuclear weapons of its own to continually demand the bombing of another country on the ground that it is on the way to possess nuclear weapons.Is it not evil and malign to unleash 'the dogs of war' on an already bleeding world?
Let me assure you I am not anti Semitic or anti Christian or anti Muslim or anti Hindu or anti any group of people.I believe in universal human values.But people must be judged by their action not by the label they put on their forehead.
Thank you Velatius.
You are quite correct about AIPAC when you say: "Hardly any American Jews belong to AIPAC. It is not the agency that speaks on politics on behalf of America's Jews." This is a point that needs to be made repeatedly, but almost never is in the American media nor, of course, in the rantings of anti-Semites.
Bullshot. I love how you guys make these obviously false statements and then get all huffy when asked for proof.
Throw off the yoke of AIPAC (the AMERICAN Israeli Public Action Committee) which degrades our society.
De-Countrify Israel Now.
Apologies to KB-Atwater, RichM, and EmpireUSA for my blanket declaration that everyone posting here has it bass-ackwards. Not everyone. Just almost everyone.
The issue here is America. We are the Empire. Israel is a client state that was created by the Empire and is maintained by the Empire, actively serving that Empire as it serves its own interests, and for which they are rewarded as a Preferred Client State. The reason both major American political parties support Israel equally is because both are global corporate imperial parties, not because a few rich Jews control the American government.
The American Left isn't going to establish a program to approach the Middle East conflict until it gets a grip on what that conflict is. The Left used to be able to do that easily, because the default position was always "it's the imperialism, stupid." Somehow much of the tattered, disjointed remains of the Left has forgotten that.