Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Can Obama Avert War with Iran?
WASHINGTON, DC - President Barack Obama has finally begun in recent months to signal to Israel that the United States would not get involved in a war started by Binyamin Netanyahu without US approval. If it is pursued firmly and consistently through 2012, the approach stands a very good chance of averting war altogether. If Obama falters, however, the temptation for Netanyahu to launch an attack on Iran, indulging in what one close Israeli observer calls his "messianism" toward the issue of Iran. 
Obama has been hesitant to publicly warn the Israeli prime minister against attacking Iran. (Gallo/Getty)
Netanyahu, like every previous Israeli prime minister, understands that an Israeli strike against Iran depends not only on US tolerance, but direct involvement against Iran, at least after the initial attack. In May 2008, his predecessor, Ehud Olmert, had requested the approval of George W Bush for an air attack on Iran, only to be refused by Bush.
Netanyahu apparently feels, however, that he can manipulate right-wing Israeli influence on American politics to make it impossible for Obama to stay out of an Israeli war on Iran. He has defied the Obama administration by refusing to assure Washington that he would consult them before making any decision on war with Iran.
The Obama administration's warning signal on the danger of an Israeli attack began flashing red after Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta came back empty-handed from a trip to Israel in September.
US officials then came up with a new strategy for pulling Israel back from the precipice of war by letting Netanyahu know that, if the US were denied a full role in coordinating military policy toward Iran, it would not come to Israel's aid in such a war.
The first step in the strategy came when Panetta was answering questions after a talk at the Saban Center of Brookings Institution on December 2. He not only expressed clear disapproval of an Israeli attack as counter-productive - something the administration had avoided in 2009 and 2010 - but went on to indicate that the US was concerned that it "could possibly be the target of retaliation from Iran, striking our ships, striking our military bases".
Initial hint by the US
Without saying so directly, that remark hinted that the US would take steps to avoid that situation, if necessary. It was evidently aimed at planting the seed of doubt in Netanyahu's mind that Obama would be willing to respond to Iranian retaliation against Israel in the event of an Israeli strike.
The next move came five weeks later, when Panetta, on CBS news "Face the Nation", made the initial hint even clearer. Panetta was then asked what the US would do if Israel were to strike Iran, despite the refusal to consult the US in advance. Panetta said, "If the Israelis made that decision, we would have to be prepared to protect our forces in that situation. And that's what we'd be concerned about."
The Israelis could easily discern that Panetta really saying the US would not retaliate against Iran unless its own bases or ships in the region were hit by Iran. Given Panetta's statement a month earlier suggesting concern that Iran might retaliate against US forces, that answer could also be regarded as a signal to Iran that the US was prepared to decouple from an Israeli war with Iran.
Although publicly there was studied silence from Jerusalem, that Panetta hint elicited a formal diplomatic protestfrom Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren. And Israel still showed no sign of softening its defiant policy of unilateralism on Iran.
Then Obama approved an explicit expression of the same message to the Israelis. According to the account circulating among senior officers close the Joint Chiefs, on January 20 the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Martin Dempsey, told Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak that the US would not defend Israel if it launched an attack on Iran that had been coordinated with the US.
But Netanyahu had already put into effect his own counter-strategy, which is to use the influence of the Israeli lobby in Congress help the Republicans against Obama in the presidential election and to maximize the pressure on Obama to support an Israeli attack on Iran.
Last December, Netanyahu's supporters in the US lobbied the US Congress to pass economic sanctions against Iran focused squarely on Iran's crude oil exports and Central Bank. The Obama administration strongly opposed the legislation. Obama's Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner wrote a letter to the Senate warning that the proposed sanctions would cause a spike in world oil prices, thus risking further deterioration of the global economy. In the end, the Obama administration was forced by Congressional action to adopt the sanctions.
But the sanctions on Iran's crude oil sector would only go into effect six months later, as would the EU cutoff of its imports of Iranian oil adopted in January. So the Obama administration had a six-month window for negotiations with Iran on its nuclear program.
How could it maximize the pressure on the Iranians to reach an agreement within six months? The obvious answer was to bring back an old theme in Obama policy - using the threat of an Israeli attack to gain diplomatic leverage on Tehran. In order to maximize that leverage, the Obama administration sought to portray Israel as poised to attack sometime between April and end of June.
'Zone of immunity'
That time frame for an Israeli attack was created entirely by the Obama administration. Ehud Barak had not suggested that the attack would come before the end of June. On the contrary, discussing in a CNN interviewlast November when Iran would reach a "zone of immunity" - the point at which it would have so much of its uranium enrichment program protected in well-protected facilities that it couldn't be destroyed by an attack - he had said, "It's true that it wouldn't take three years… probably three-quarters, before no one can do anything practically about it…"
A story leaked by Secretary of Defence Leon Panetta to Washington Post columnist David Ignatius last week said Panetta believing there was a "strong likelihood" that Israel would attack sometime between April and the end of June. What appeared on the surface to be an expression of US alarm about a strike coming so soon was actually an effort to put pressure on Tehran to make new concessions on its nuclear program before the sanctions take effect.
Instead of characterizing Netanyahu's posture as irrational and reckless, Ignatius chose to depict the official view of a short and relatively painless war with Iran without the slightest hint that it is rejected out of hand by Israeli intelligence and military leaders. Ignatius was presumably prompted by Panetta to characterize it in a way that would make the Israeli threat more credible to Iran.
What really gave away Panetta's intention to pressure Iran, however, was the fact that he used Ignatius to warn Iran that, if it retaliated against Israeli population centers, the US "could feel obligated to come to Israel's defence".
That warning clearly undercut the painstaking efforts the Obama administration had made over the previous two months to signal to Netanyahu that Israel would be on its own if it attacked Iran without prior US agreement. The sudden reversal in Obama's policy dramatically illuminated the deep contradictions built into its policy.
On one hand, Obama has been pursuing a course aimed at avoiding being drawn into an Israeli war with Iran, which both Obama and the military leadership consider as against vital US interests. On the other hand, Obama believes he needs a deal with Iran to demonstrate both to Israel and to the US public that he is succeeding in inducing Iran to retreat from its present stance on its nuclear program.
The belief was supported by the conventional wisdom in the US national security state that Iran can only be brought to the table with an acceptable position through pressure. It is also in line with bit of conventional wisdom: that no Democratic President can afford to openly decouple the US from Israeli security - especially in relation to Iran.
The contradiction between the two elements of Obama's policy toward Iran went unnoticed in the US. But the real meaning of the leak was certainly understood in Iran as well as in Israel.
There is still time for Obama to repair the damage and to return to the policy he had begun developing in December. But unless Obama warns Netanyahu publicly that an attack against US wishes would indeed mean he is on his own, the chances of deterring him and avoiding war with Iran will be sharply reduced.
103 Comments so far
Show AllHe will just do nothing for his tongue is his only sensible power.
Without help from the military industrial complex (MIC) Obama will not meet his goal to become the first politician to amass a corporate funded billion dollar campaign war chest.
An Israel/Iran war will put billions of dollars into the pockets of the MIC.
Even if Iran does not strike American forces during an Israeli attack, the Israelis will. They will send a torpedo at an American ship, making it appear that Iran launched it. It would not be the first time the Israelis have attacked a US ship.
Of course, after that the US population will demand an attack on Iran, just as it clamored for an invasion of Cuba after the sinking of the Maine. The Israelis play the United States like a musical instrument, getting it produce whatever sounds it wants. Unfortunately, they are smart, while we are not.
Good point--that Israel can be expected to attack one of our ships, as a "false-flag" operation. After all, it seems clear that 911 was an "event" involving explosives, with the airplanes simply being a diversion. Who planted the explosives? Most likely it was Mossad, an organization with the expertise to undertake this "attack," working for a country with a motive for getting rid of Saddam. The Israelis got what they wanted--and with no cost to them, in either money or lives. Why do we continue to support this terrorist country? (A rhetorical question, of course!)
The Israelis "play the United States like a musical instrument, getting it produce whatever sound it wants" because Israel owns the instrument and the person blowing it. The United States has already moved two battleships (set for mothballs in a few months) to park them as a ready target near Iran. These ships will be blown up and save us the cost of decommissioning them and the Third World War is off and running. We will be fighting Iran and their allies Russia, China and India.
I'm not sure who drosera is saying is not smart.........the people of the United States or the people running the government. (it is not a democracy you know).. The people are smart enough to know that starting another war is not wise from their point of view. But from the point of view of our corrupt elected officials it is plenty smart. Big profits to be made by their 'contributors' that will wash back into their open hands.
I hope we are smart enough not to send anyone up for election this time back for another term to serve Israel and the banksters.
Like what the Israeli's when they attacked the USS Liberty in 1967 without any protest by the USG, that kind of a false flag attack. Gulf of Tonkin 2, in the Straits of Hormuz. 1. That's what will happen, and the Israeli Zionists with chutzpa the size of the solar system know it just before an election the USG will not protest or even whimper. The Zionists will even stage an attack on Israel, blaming Iran.
If Obama's Democratic handlers believe a war will garner votes, war we will have. If they believe avoiding war will get more votes, then we won't go to war. Getting Obama elected is the Democrat's most important job this year, and if that takes the loss of American troops, well that is a cost the nation will have to bear.
Even the mere act of verbally threatening another country with military attack is a war crime.
Therefore, the quickest route to defuse the situation is to impeach "nothing is off the table with regards to Iran" Obama and simultaneously bring Nutty-Yahoo up on war crimes charges.
Why should the rest of the world allow these two psychopathic, warmongering nations drag the planet into a catastrophic conflict when instead we could reinstitute the rule of law and put an end to this nonsense relatively easily.
Neither thing is going to happen. Obama won't be impeached and Netanyahu won't go before any court unless he gets caught fondling his babysitter or something. Do you have something more useful to suggest?
Poster above said something useful, the Democrats will do anything to get Obama re-elected. If they think that a war will win votes, then there will be war. Maybe we need to let the Democrats know that war is a deal killer with Obama? War means masses of people voting for anyone else possible...
Nothing is more useful than an injection of unspoken truth.
Cygnus...
Agreed.
John Shade apparently participates in these conversations to stomp out "unspoken truths" to prevent them from taking root and turning into spoken action.
Whoever uses the words "impeach", "Obama" and "war criminal" in a post must be instantly and aggressively attacked.
The truth is like poison to those who support the Obama administration and detest the rule of law.
Bull. Unspoken truth is by definition, twaddle, meaningless. And I might add, you didn't leave it unspoken, but spoke it... or wrote it.
Maybe you want to have a unicorn in office or kittens with rainbows for everyone... just about as useful so thanks for the thought.
"Maybe you want to have a unicorn in office or kittens with rainbows for everyone..."
Finally the truth comes out about the US Office of the Presidency, a feel good make believe world for the faithful.
The title of this article says it all... a daily dose disinfo piece with unicorns and rainbows and goblins in Never Never Land.
Serious folks need not enter.
Our (S)elections are 100% rigged/gamed/managed fraud, so 'what the pres does or doesn't do' (realistically they don't personally make decisions - those are handled by the various groups of vested interests/shadow govt) has ZERO bearing on the 'outcome' of an 'election' that's already been decided (which puppet 'wins') like everything else, from behind the scenes, unaccountable to the brainwashed populace.
I agree. Obama doesn't care what the voters think, because most Amerikans just go along for the war ride. We will have 4 more years of Obama, as demonstrated by the republican primaries. Obama loves the kabuki theater of it all, so all the dumbocrats listen to him with adoration every time he does another terrible thing like slaughtering a wedding party or groups of children.
Obama will attack Iran because he uses violence, whether in the form of war or economic sanctions, as his chief instrument of foreign policy. And all of the "liberals" and "progressives" will cheer on their serial chain saw baby killer.
Right. On. The. Money. He's the Lesser Evil, dontchaknow.
"America has one political party with two right-wings." - Gore Vidal
Product wise, it's no more "Obama" than "Bush," or "Clinton," or ... so on and so forth. That's the Divide & Rule, this side vs that side 'sports' mentality ruse that keeps the populace chasing shadows. It's one big $ party promoting Profit$ Over People at any expense, including ensuring mass suffering, mass murder, and, in all likelihood, within the not too distant future, human extinction.
'Sensible,' 'reasonable' types love to downplay the seriousness of the current era by proclaiming, "People have been worried about the World Ending from the Dawn of Time!" ...which is true enough, but it overlooks crucial points, such as, it's only been since the mid 20th century that our species has had extinction ensuring weaponry set to mass, instantaneous global delivery systems...which are in the hands of sociopaths who routinely enure unnecessary toil and hardship, and who make decisions that result in mass murder.
Seems to me that's a rather revealing bit of data to exclude from the equation when attempting to accurately asses the situation!
Using violence to create fear for controlling a country's population is the Machiavellian strategy, using fear, because it is the easiest of the Machiavelli 3 alternatives which also includes persuasion of "love" kindness. The 3rd is a combination of the 1sr two. Fear is just the easiest, not the most efficient, not the cheapest, just the easiest, which suits the politicians who reap the benefits of bribery corruption because fear uses the MICC for the tools necessary to deploy and carryout the dictates of fear which uses weaponry.
Nice idea, but a president has to be impeached by Congress. Do you see any likelihood of that happening? Do you even see a Bill of Impeachment being brought to Congress? Certainly not for going to war on Israel's behalf! Unless Obama is caught diddling the dog--and that's as likely as catching him picking his nose--only the voters can send him home and he still won't be leaving until next January.
The price of gas is set to reach $5 per gallon because of the threat to the Straits of Hormuz shipping. Just the threats are driving up the price of oil and if actual conflict occurs the price of gas going to $7 or $8 per gallon in the USA is likely. The USG is willing to ruin the economy of the world and the USA, to protect the Israeli Zionists and the USRAELI'S which bribes the christian fundamental Zionists to carry the Zionist torch for Zionism in the USA using ancient biblical superstitions as the basis for their propaganda in the USA.The Zionists know how gullible and ignorant USAn's are and have the chutzpah necessary to exploit it even at the expense of the rest of the world. The USRAELI will not protest, except against Iran, at the behest of their Zionist masters. The Zionist plan is to take over the leadership positions of the House and Senate and Cantor is expected to challenge Boner for the Republican speaker. Remember, Lieberman was actually elected in 2000 as VP, but the SCOTUS scuttled the 2000 election with a unconstitutional decision which selected Bush. If Gore were President, in comes Mossad and Gore in Terminated, those lone gunmen again, and Lieberman, an avowed Zionist with dual citizenship, is President.
OBAMA 2012! Obama Bashers go down in November. Really tough to face political reality.
A true believer are ya...
The Blue team is going to kick the Red Team's ass in 2012! Goooooo Blue!
Doesn't it seem like a stupid concept when thought about in those terms? It's not a sporting event for cryin' out loud.
I'm surprised to see this kind of PollyAnna nonsense from Gareth Porter. "Can Obama Avert War with Iran?" Is he really buying into ObamaCon's bull roar? Barry is a sociopath. He wants this war as much as Netanyahu—anything that will get him re-elected, regardless of the human impact. This dance with Israel is all a front. Our shepherd of Empire is pushing for war with everything he's got. Wake up and smell the rotting corpses. No one and nothing is going to prevent the coming debacle. The machine is grinding forward, regardless of any reality-based objections. Porter usually gives a more realistic analysis than this.
Yes, I was disappointed by Porter also, no mention of Iran's Brazil agreement on fuel exchange which OilyBomber squashed. OilyBomber and Bush Baby have the same handlers fascist imperialist .1%. Vote tally and the President is predetiremined, by the same .1% who decide who to install as POTUS. USA citizens have near zero input ( except for the strength of Occupy) as to who will be installed as next President.NPR and Washinton Post did a extreme warmongering propaganda piece this morning on the prelude to War zionists are orchaestrating. The USA military has named the Iranian war "Austere Challenge". I would like to see an analysis of whether Iran could do anything other than become a vassal state in order to avoid being slaughtered. As of now almost no oil is leaving Iran for anywhere including China because oil tankers can not buy insurance to sail to and from Iran. Sounds like immenent war to me.
jmowrey,
I'm also surprised to see such crap from Gareth Porter. His reporting on this issue starts with the unsupportable assumption that Obama, in some sense, "wants" to avoid a war with Iran, then all that follows is filtered through that lens.
Whatever Obama might "want" in this vague sense doesn't amount to a hill of beans. Watch what he does. Right now, his administration is deeply involved in the pre-war choreography, just beating the drums.
True but very depressing. As far as I remember, the last US president to stand up to Israel was Ike in the Suez adventure of 1956. When subsequent presidents sided with Israel it was for the sake of the Jewish vote which was overwhelmingly Democrat in the early days. That love-affair waned with regard to Israel and so AIPAC was created and US presidents became a water-carriers of the Likud Party.
It is finally dawning on me, that I actually prefer GWB. The smirking chimp was at least able to to stand up to AIPAC and say no.
The current repug candidates also seem worse than GWB. Maybe McCain was actually a better option.
Take a look at the very early posts oftomcarberry and dreamjoehill on the Noam Chomsky "Hegemony and Its Dilemmas" article.
Come on! Dubya's entire foreign policy of war on the Middle East was given to him wholesale by a group of far right-wing Jewish Hawks-for-Israel who worked for Aipac at the same time. Check his advisors--and their history. Build up Israel so it could be our proxy in the MiddleEast after securing oil for the New American Empire by destroying the independent nations of the Middle East (i.e. all but Bush's "brothers" in the House of Saud and their tributaries in the smaller Gulf oil states). That was the "Project for a New American Century" and Israel was their lynchpin. And that was why we went to war on Iraq and why Iran would have been next.
For those old enough to remember, Obama is Nixon, Netanyahu is Agnew, two people of like mind separated only by their public style.
Well, okay, but...
realtiy check.
A "war" with Iran would be no such thing. It would be a massive exchange of high tech, sophisticated weaponry, probably leaving civilization in a state of collapse.
Are they that sociopathic?
I doubt it. No I think adults have stepped into the room and they have seperated the children for now.
Which leaves the larger question. How does humanity prevent such friction as supplies run out and the population of the planet grows?
Supplies, meaning petroleum for our transport, domestic and military, I assume.
Obviate the need for such supplies. A recent news note had CERN scientists requesting $15 billion to advance the development of fusion energy. That's what this country spends every two months in its foreign wars. If it took $150 billion to reach practical fusion technology, that's less than two years. If it took $300 billion, that's 2 1/2 years.
It sure beats spending trillions trying to settle a 20-year conflagration in the Middle East, considering the geographic size and popular Iranian will opposing an invasion from outsiders. A war that would be "won" with the same degree of finality as Afghanistan, Iraq, and Vietnam.
It all depends on how you choose to waste public money since fusion energy may only be a pipe dream. For now I prefer the pipe dream rather than creating new sets of enemies and veterans
Iran has practically zero high tech weaponry to exchange with zionist, who have 200+ nukes. Ask Shade our house munitions expert. Zionists have already blown up many of Iran's crude and few missiles. Only if Russia or China defends Iran will there be anything that could be called an "exchange".
This exchange of weaponry would be really cool if accompanied by good computer graphics, with Wolf Blitzer keeping us informed of the noble activities of those who protect and defend us. As long as they edit out the kids with their heads blown off and stuff like that and as long as they keep it in prime time and high definition, I say pop some popcorn and let the festivities begin! Is this a great country or what!
It is ridiculous to think that Obama with his proven track record of cowering before Israel will avert war with Iran because everythin that the United States has done since his election is leading inevitably to war with Iran. The foreign policy establishment and advisors to presidents of both parties are dominated by zionists who will support Israel even when their terrorist policies go against the national security interests of the United States.
Question about the "foreign policy establishment and advisers to Presidents" How many of these people have dual citizenship? How many are citizens of Israel and at the same time citizens of the United States? And to which nation do they serve? Is this treason?
As a matter of fact, any person from anywhere in the world who has at least one Jewish grandparent (that chosen because that was how the Nazis defined a Jew) is considered a Jew by the State of Israel and all they have to do is land on Israeli soil to have claim Israeli citizenship. They are the only Americans who are allowed by Act of Congress (passed in the time of Truman, I think) to have dual nationality after taking another nationality. Some immigrants to the US can retain their old nationality after getting American citizenship, like Brits, because some nations, like the UK, never let their citizens abandon their citizenship even when they take another, but only Jews, by that Act of Congress, are allowed to take another citizenship while keeping a prior American citizenship.
Israel is quite capable of concocting a false flag attack, blaming Iran, and dragging the US into a war with Iran. Israel has conducted false flag attacks on the US before. I think any attack by Iran on the US or Israel that we might hear on the news in the next year or so will almost certainly be a false flag event, made in Tel Aviv. And, politically speaking, the US administration will once again be the puppet of Israel.
The USRAELI relationship is David[the Israeli Zionists] and Goliath[the USG]. We know who won that battle and I'm sure this is how the Israeli Zionist extremist interpret the USRAELI relationship, David slew Goliath.
Isn't it amazing that, after three years, no one can figure out what Obama will do next? We only know we'll be surprised and disappointed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ZJKQKnpFYk
You mean we are not already at war with Iran? Sanctions, drones in their air space, provocative USA naval power in their waters, threats to their security... Imagine what we would do if Iran was doing that to us.
The bottom line is that USAers love war. It instills a sence of purpose and pride... especially now in a nation that cannot clothe, feed, shelter, or provide medical care for the people. Yep, we will continue to wage war. Too many americans think its fun. The proof is in the way voters vote. Both Parties are war parties. The US voter is afraid of Peace...."the Muslims are coming to get us. There's a Muslim behind every tree. Remember 9/11. They hate us for our freedom. Rally around the flag. War stimulates the economy. We need the jobs...". And besides all that, how many remember what the USA did to Iran in 1953. Bet that's not in your kid's text book.
Don't blame the people. It's the corporate profiteers. Even when the gov can't sell the war, we stay in them. But yes, the gov has to sell the war to corporate bought congress first.
Sundome... Thanks for the comment. You seem to exonerate the voters. If they wanted peace they would not vote for D or R in Congress or for Commander-in-chief. As long as we continue to say, don't blame me, blame the other guy nothing will change. Voters have to accept responsibility. Voting has consequences. USA voters continue to vote for war every time they cast a D or R ballot. Connecting the dots between voters and war is not hard.
Great comment Rosemarie!
Actually, when the other guy isn't pulling 3 percent of the vote, you can't blame the rest of the people for deciding on the lesser of the two evils that CAN win. Come up with a 3rd party candidate that can sell himself and get 30% in the polls and then we'll talk.
Sundome...Thanks for the comment. We don't need a third party. It is the party system that got us here. And your criticism of third party candidates is misplaced. The criticism should be directed toward voters. I can think of a lot of candidates who would be great - it is the voters who need to stop thinking in the R and D box. As long as they continue to vote for the lesser of the evils, evil will win.
Want a list of acceptable candidates? NADER, BILL BLUM, JEREMY SCHAHILL, ANGELA DAVIS, BILL QUIGLEY, AMY GOODMAN, and thousands of others. Pick one and vote, or else please stay home on election day. Remember, an R or D vote means people will die in war, drone attacks, and assassination of US and other citizens.
Candidates have to be RUNNING.
The USAN mantra about responsibility stems from the false christianity doctrine which is to deny responsibility, the "I'm not responsible, god told me and /or Satan made me do it, but I'm not responsible". This is the appeal of the phony christian doctrine which is used to lure the gullible and ignorant to become pretend christians, they don't have to be responsible", which is a cult characteristic providing a peer group support system for denying being responsible.Of course the politicians, preachers and business so called leaders, readily embrace the "I'm not responsible doctrine of the pretend christians" for themselves which gives them cover to declare their christian credentials to the public whom also embrace the "I'm not responsible doctrine" of pretend christianity.
Because your default position is to always blame the public, accusing them by turns of being stupid, loving war (today), or voting for what's obviously the pre-selected candidates served on the official menu, I would once again ask you if you dislike people? You never seem to recognize the battery of psychic assault weapons, most operating below the radar (pulsing propaganda 24/7) that deliberately works to engineer (or as Chomsky would say, manufacture) the consent you balk at.
Just because YOU had the moral fortitude to question authority and look outside the box doesn't mean the vast majority recognize that other options even exist. With the right information, they certainly could!
The short story "Flatlanders" describes beings that are so conditioned to look left or right that the premise of looking up--that is for a way over the walls that trap and limit their existences--never enters into the cognitive calculus. That story is an apt metaphor in describing the American political theater...
You never show empathy or understanding for the powerful forces that keep so many inside that "flat land" territory. The following are some of the factors that help to manufacture consent:
Fundamentalist religion
An MSM that LIES 24/7
The gushing worship of the military hero drummed in so that everything Eisenhower warned, about the MIC, has been massaged into place
That no voices of peace are seen in the MSM
That voices of peace were kept off much of the radio spectrum (Thank you, Clear Channel)
That the very premise of a leader is now seamlessly tied to brutal expressions of militarism, i.s. MARTIAL force
That conformity is a powerful social force, and as society pushes obedience memes, it's terrifying for many to step out of line
That sporting events push Neanderthal emotions like "slaughtering the enemy."
That our public schools have become infiltrated by those with very narrow (again, all based on narrow programming) agenda
Even meat eating tends to produce more of an emphasis on aggression
The US voter is NOT afraid of peace, Rosemary. The US voter, along with the entire uber: macho culture and its homage to war is being conditioned to accept war as the new norm.
Your understanding of cause and effect is troubling.