- On Thursday, I was somewhat happy that the Freeman affair
showed the existence of stauncher opposition to the Israel Lobby than I
would have expected in the US intelligence agencies; now, after devoting
more thought to the matter, it also seems likely that the failure of Freemans
appointment could be a step toward a US attack on Iran.
-
- The first article I include is Justin Raimondos Charles
Freeman's Victory.
-
- Raimondos central point is that the demise of Chas Freemans
appointment is actually a defeat for Israel. He writes: The nixing of Charles
"Chas" Freeman from a post as head of the National Intelligence
Council is not, as is commonly averred, a victory for the Israel lobby.
It is, instead, a Pyrrhic victory that is, a victory so costly that it
really amounts to a defeat for them. Sure, they managed to keep out a trenchant
critic of their Israel-centric and grossly distorted view of a proper American
foreign policy, and, yes, they managed to smear him and put others on notice
that someone with his views is radioactive, as far as a high-level job
in the foreign policy establishment is concerned. And yet and yet .
-
- They the Lobby have now been forced out in the open.
A lobby, says Steve Rosen, the ringleader of the "get Freeman"
lynch mob, is like a night flower: it thrives in the dark and dies in the
sun.
-
- In the middle parts of his article, Raimondo acknowledges
that it was absolutely essential for the Israel Lobby to prevent Freeman
from getting the key intelligence position in order to attain their next
goal: a US attack on Iran. Raimondo writes that The Lobby was desperate
to keep Freeman out of the NIC because it's an agency that provides key
intelligence for the President and Congress. If you'll recall, that's how
the War Party lured us into fighting an unnecessary war against Iraq by
manipulating the intelligence, and even resorting to forgery to achieve
their ends. With Freeman at the helm of the intelligence-gathering machinery,
they'd never be able to pull if off again. [See also Edmund Connelly, The
Appointment of Charles Freeman and the Coming War with Iran, http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/authors/Connelly-Freeman.html#Iran]
-
- Raimondo concludes his article by writing that The Freeman
affair has exposed the Israel lobby for precisely what they are: it has
flushed them out of the woodwork, and brought them in from the shadows.
That in itself is a great victory, one that means much more in the longterm
than anyone presently imagines.
-
- Now if without Freeman, the Israel Lobby is able to drive
the US into an attack on Iran, one wonders how valuable any longterm effects
of recognizing its power will be. As economist John Maynard Keynes quipped:
In the long run we are all dead. And many people will be literally dead
if the Israel Lobby is able to achieve its goal of war on Iran. Moreover,
if the US becomes involved in a terrible conflagration in the Middle East,
war propaganda and censorship would likely drown out any voices who would
dare to point out the real cause of the war.
-
- In the other article, Peter Lee in Counterpunch like
Raimondo sees the Freeman affair as being related to the Israel Lobbys
plans for Iran, though he presents the Lobbys position to be more defensive.
Lee writes The real significance of the fight against Freeman . . . . has
everything to do with trying to disrupt Obamas initiative to engage with
Iran.
-
- Lee points out that rapprochement with Iran would be
highly beneficial to United States interests in a number of significant
ways. Beyond helping keep the lid on in Iraq by moderating the behavior
of the majority Shia against the Sunni, Lee writes that an active Iranian
role in Afghanistan could do the United States a world of good, especially
in opening some kind of second front against the Taliban in the opium heartland
of western Afghanistan and providing an alternative to the risky Pakistan
route for U.S. and NATO supplies into Afghanistan
-
- Lee maintains that Israel and its American supporters
will do everything they can to prevent any improvement in American/Iranian
relations, which they believe will be harmful to Israels interests. Lee
holds that Israels claim to unstinting U.S. support is enhanced rather
than damaged if it occupies an isolated position at the center of a dysfunctional
Middle East filled with Muslim nations hostile both to it and the United
States. (As I point out in my book The Transparent Cabal, the Israeli Likudniks
seek a fragmented Middle East in order to enhance Israeli security interests
http://home.comcast.net/~transparentcabal/)
-
- Lee writes that I anticipate unending efforts by Israels
supporters in the U.S. Congress, media, and think tank commentariat to
make the political cost of dealing with Iran unsupportable for the Obama
administration. And with the economy stuck in a mile-deep rut, President
Obama may in fact decide not to pick a fight over Iran and do little more
than prolong the bloody standoffs in Iraq and Afghanistan.
-
- However, Lee adds that the economy might compel the Obama
administration to seek better relations with Iran and overall stability
in the Middle East. He writes:
-
- In order to pull the world out of recession, its better
to have functioning states and economies in the Middle East and South Asia
and working relationships with global and regional powers--not billion-dollar
sinkholes for destabilizing security spending and defiant antagonism to
Russia, China, and Iran.
-
- That means the U.S. needs concerted multi-lateral efforts
to ratchet down the existential crises looming in Afghanistan, Pakistan,
and, potentially, Iraq. The world system is in shaky shape and today we
may not be able to afford the domestic political division, confrontation-and-conflict
based foreign policy, and international instability that indulging the
Israel lobby traditionally brings.
-
- So, in short, Lee sees Obama on the horns of a perilous
dilemma. There would be grave political costs if he tried to move away
from the Israeli-oriented confrontational approach in the Middle East.
However, the American economy, and the world economic system, are in such
terrible shape that the continued instability in Middle East cannot be
tolerated.
-
- While Lee depicts the situation quite clearly, he neglects
to mention the political value of one other approacha US war on Iran. Undoubtedly
this would dramatically worsen Americas economic situation. However, if
the economy should continue to sink and begins to cause Obamas popularity
to plummet, war would be a way of diverting public attention from the economy
and could concomitantly improve his public support dramatically as a great
war leader in line with Obamas presidential heroesLincoln and Franklin
Roosevelt. Wars make the general populace far more willing to endure hardship
than is the case during peacetime.
-
-
- Moreover, the war would create the political climate
to allow for extreme deficit financing (by money creation) that could mitigate
the economic hardship in the short-termpostponing greater economic suffering
for the future. Republican criticism would virtually cease, especially
because the Republicans are likely to be the most hawkish on the Iranian
issue. And having the full support of the Israel Lobby would certainly
bolster Obamas media image. Furthermore, Obamas close pro-Zionist advisors,
Rahm Emanuel and David Axelrod would likely be urging him to move in a
war direction, contending that it would boost his political image. It would
require a strong, independent, knowledgeable statesman to resist such a
temptation and to sacrifice individual interest for the good of the country,
especially when Obamas key advisors would be urging war for the good of
the United States.
-
- If, as Raimondo maintains, the Israel Lobby intends to
use the bogus intelligence to drive the US to war, the blocking of Freemans
appointment might be a significant step to the purging, or intimidating
into silence, of the critics of Israel/neocon war policy in the American
intelligence services. Daniel Luban and Jim Lobe write that Adm. Dennis
Blair, who went to the Senate and strongly defended his appointee, may
be the next target for Freeman's antagonists as they push for alarmist
intelligence on Iran. http://www.antiwar.com/ips/lubanlobe.php?articleid=14400
It should be noted that Freeman affair not only brought the Israel Lobby
out into the open but it also revealed its critics in the national security
apparatus. It has thus facilitated a possible purge.
-
- Moreover, some leading officials in the national security
apparatus are already in line with the Israel Lobby war agenda. New CIA
director Leon Panetta and head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mike Mullen
have recently been talking about the alleged Iranian nuclear threat. http://informationclearinghouse.info/article22176.htm
-
- Once American intelligence agencies become unified in
disseminating false intelligence, which would be trumpeted by the US media,
the stage could be set for a war on Iran.
-
- Most members of Congress were quite willing to sign on
for the Iraq war because of political pressure. What reason is there to
think that Obama would be any different, especially if his own experts
presented him with information illustrating the alleged danger posed by
Iran? Of course, if the career professionals in the intelligence services
are so opposed to a Middle East war, and if they have the courage to suffer
career-wise, their staunch resistance might be able to thwart this development.
Maybe the traditional foreign policy establishment and various financial
interests will perceive a war on Iran to be so devastating that they will
go all out to prevent this from occurring. However, if they dont start
reacting soon it could be too late when the Israel Lobby has gained control
of the levers of power in national security.
|