Washington’s
Next Military
Crusade Is Beckoning
By Amr Ismail
09 May, 2006
Leadaship.com
Washington’s
hegemonic strategy made it the chief adversary of social progress, peace
and democracy. Contradictions of America’s capitalism are getting
sharper, and the language of force and total destruction is hardly absent
from delivered statements by White House officials and some members
of congress. Can we justifiably signal Israel for using the US as proxy
for war and for its chief role in manipulating the American public?
There is a great sense of
anticipation for what could transpire following the recent publication
of “The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy” – an
academic paper by two Harvard professors. What prompts John Mearsheimer
and Stephen Walt to come forward with their discussion on The Israel
lobby and US foreign policy is likely their well deserved conviction
that the Project of The American Century is not in the interest of the
United States, and that the entire premise of a prolonged series of
current and coming wars, interventions and nation building falls back
on only one justification – securing Israel’s realm as advanced
by AIPAC and other loosely coupled lobbying organizations on behalf
of the tiny nation. The authors didn’t deny Christian Zionists’
their due credit and contribution.
The two distinguished realist
academics bravely fingered AIPAC as the force behind foreign policy,
and shrewdly cemented the validity of their assertions by generating
exactly the kind of response and attacks they had anticipated prior
to publishing. Both professors have long been well placed in and around
the hallways of foreign policy, and they are well aware that anything
remotely connected with the whole of the Middle East, whether to do
with intelligence services, business interests or the likes is generated
for the US lawmakers and politicians by Israel. It’s probably
not that surprising to Mearsheimer and Walt to observe how little Americans
know about the Middle East, or how far that little knowledge is distorted
for the great majority of Americans.
Accusations of anti-Semitism,
and critiques on the exclusion of corporate and imperial interests from
the discussion were leveled against Mearsheimer and Walt; yet such accusations
are anything but factual or objective, and critiques of exclusion deny
the authors their right to closely examine the role of the lobby which,
as events continue to unfold, appears to be the one behind the war trail
the US is currently wading in. Hence, critics should start by examining
facts related to the rush to war in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the follow
up call for war on other countries in the region.
In fact, Mearsheimer and
Walt’s discussion reveals, what to many is, the tip of the iceberg.
Once AIPAC and its sister organizations are seen amongst their political
and academic teammates, media affiliates, and corporate sponsors, one
can envision how flawed and criminal policies that favor the tiny nation,
particularly those damaging to US interests, are sold to Americans.
AIPAC fundamentally differs from say a China lobby or the NRA; it is
common that there is a dominant lobby within a given political structure,
it is also common that a dominant lobby may represent only a fraction
of the population; but what must not be tolerated is placing the interests
of that lobby above national interests, which is treason. I recall that
the first Cindy Sheehan’s televised comments sighted Israel as
the reason and motivator for war in Iraq; it didn’t pick up steam
then.
On Capitol Hill September
12, 2002 former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu testified
before the House Government Reform Committee in a hearing entitled Conflict
With Iraq, an Israeli Perspective. Natanyahu tutored House members on
the benefits of adopting pre-emption attacks and on ignoring international
law:
“Did Israel launch
that preemptive strike (referring to Israel’s pre-emptive bombing
of Iraq’s nuclear site in 1981) because Saddam had committed a
specific act of terror against us? Did we coordinate our actions with
the international community? Did we condition this operation on the
approval of the United Nations? No, of course no. Israel acted because,
it understood, we understood, that a nuclear- armed Saddam would place
our very survival at risk. And today the United States must destroy
the same regime because a nuclear-armed Saddam will place the security
of our entire world at risk”.
“Today the United
States must destroy the same regime because a nuclear-armed Saddam will
place the security of our entire world at risk”. “Today,
nothing less than dismantling his regime will do because Saddam's nuclear
program has fundamentally changed in those two decades. He no longer
needs one large reactor to produce the deadly material necessary for
atomic bombs. He can produce it in centrifuges the sizes of washing
machines that wan be hidden throughout the country”.
“So knowing this,
I ask all the governments and others who oppose or question the president's
plan to look at it from the other end of the logic: Do you believe that
action can be taken against Saddam only after he builds nuclear bombs
and uses them? And do the various criticisms, especially overseas, believe
that a clear connection between Saddam and September 11 must be established
before we have a right to prevent the next September 11? Well, I think
not”.
Back in August NBC reporter
Jim Miklaszewski alleged that Iran is smuggling arms to Sunni insurgents
in Northern Iraq, Ladeen commented by saying “The Koran, whatever
the particular exegesis employed, is no obstacle to tactical alliances,
any more than Mein Kampf prevented...Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin from
making alliances with their presumed mortal enemies when circumstances
warranted”. Ladeen’s analysis, which is shared by other
neocons and policy makers, alleges that Shia Iran chose to arm Iraqi
Sunnis and not the Shia - their ideological brothers! There is no logic,
common sense, or basis to this assumptive analysis; If Iran were to
arm anyone in Iraq against the US, it would be the majority Shia, and
if Iran were to choose sides in a sectarian conflict, it would still
be the Shia. It’s noteworthy that Ladeen immediately ruled out
the possibility of an existing or an emerging small terrorist cell sympathizing
with the insurgency on the other side of the border, and accused Tehran
flat out. Ladeen is the one amongst neocons with extensive expertise
on Iran; his political philosophy is indelibly stamped in the minds
of foreign policy makers:
"Change -- above
all violent change -- is the essence of human history,"
"Creative destruction
is our middle name. We do it automatically . . .. It is time once again
to export the democratic revolution."
"Total war not only
destroys the enemy's military forces, but also brings the enemy society
to an extremely personal point of decision, so that they are willing
to accept a reversal of the cultural trends,"
"The sparing of
civilian lives cannot be the total war's first priority . . .. The purpose
of total war is to permanently force your will onto another people."
"No one I know wants
to wage war on Iran and Syria, but I believe there is now a clear recognition
that we must defend ourselves against them,"
Meanwhile, Jerry Falwell
is making inroads with republicans and democrats alike to seek commitment
and endorsement to war efforts, he can be seen in the friendly company
of John McCain, Ted Kennedy, and the list is getting long. This is very
significant, keeping in mind that Rev. Falwell, his followers and this
White House administration firmly believe in and work towards blocking
any peace efforts between Palestinians and Israelis. That puts the US
on a head-on collision course with a Muslim world that is, simultaneously,
pushing hard for Palestinian rights and a lasting peace in that region.
It’s Mr. Falwell’s vision that America follows the path
to destruction to achieve eternal salvation, paying no attention whatsoever
to anything less than divine, and as he puts it himself to millions
of Americans:
“I am fully expecting
between now and the coming of the Lord that this world is going to experience
a spiritual awakening unlike anything in the past. There is going to
be an invasion of god on this planet, and changing of lives: real biblical
evangelism. There is going to be a terrific harvest of souls somewhere
between here and the Rapture. I believe that god’s role for America
is a catalyst, that he wants to set the spiritual time bomb off right
here. If that is the case, America must stay free. And for America to
stay free we must come back to the only principles that god can honor:
the dignity of life, the traditional family, decency, morality and so
on. I just see myself as one to stand in the gap and, under God, with
the help of millions of others, to bring the nation back to a moral
standard so we can stay free in order that we can evangelize the world.
And protect the Jews.”
"I think that Muhammad
was a terrorist," "I've read enough of the history of his
life, written by Muslims and non Muslims, to say that he was a violent
man of war."
I wonder how know-it-all
Karen Hughes would explain such undemocratic wisdom in a goodwill tour
to the Muslim world!!, or how would she execute the intended goal of
the administration, which is to make Arabs and Muslims respect democracy
in general and the US in particular? Notably Hughes’s long serving
mission prior to her appointment as goodwill ambassador, was to groom
Bush junior for the presidency and to create his image. He emerged a
president with the weakest command of language, and the least liked
or respected in generations. And this week, Aljazeera polled its online
readers and a majority, reflecting Arab public opinion, believes that
Bush is waging a crusade against Islam. That’s Hughes’s
other “mission accomplished”.
The DLC and leading democrats
continue to play by the neocons’ rules. I also find the role played
by an outspoken Murtha and the kind of attention he has been receiving
from mainstream media to be illusive, especially taking into account,
the more distinguished record of John Kerry, the foreign relations history
of Joseph Biden, or the power and fiery character of Hilary Clinton.
Was Murtha pushed on the public to divert attention from real war issues
and to absorb the anger of many anti-war groups within his party? Clinton’s
support for war on Iran and Kerry’s passivity seem to imply so.
Last November Cheney, in a speech on “The Coming Victory”
given at the Council on Foreign Relations and Policy quoted Joe Lieberman’
pro-war statements and conveyed lieberman’s solidarity to the
neocon war project. By cheney’s account, working hand-in-glove
with leading democrats on the “war on terror” couldn’t
have been more harmonious. So who, in the US today, can seriously challenge
this duopoly?
An impatient Rice declared
yesterday on CBS that the US would go ahead and pre-emptively bomb Iran
anyway if no progress were made in the ongoing talks and despite the
IAEA report, which categorically stated that Iran is free of WMD’s.
It is North Korea that daringly
announced it has WMD’s, not Iran;
It is Venezuela that threatened
to cut oil supplies to the US when pressed, not Iran;
It is Pakistan that is run
by a dictator who took power in a military coup, not Iran - a country
with an elected president and an Islamic parliamentarian democracy;
It is both Norway and Iran
that called for a new oil bourse that’s being rolled out to accept
petro-euros next to petro-dollars;
It is the Sunnis in Iraq
who run the insurgency against a US occupier, not the Shia who are aligned
closely to Iran.
It is Israel who is a non-signatory
country to the NPT, not Iran, a member of the NPT and one of the callers,
together with the Arab league, for a WMD-free Middle East.
It is the US and Israel who
have been naming Iran an axis of evil and have been threatening to pre-emptively
bomb it (recall Cheney and Rumsfeld’s earlier statements about
their ability to run simultaneous successful missions in different parts
of the globe) whenever they feel like it, all before Iran’s current
president was even elected!!
It was a former US presidential
candidate and a White House mentor who openly called for the assassination
of the elected leader of a sovereign nation – that happens to
be a key energy supplier that offered much needed assistance during
and after Katrina (a call that was denounced by the world but not the
US government), not Iran, but Iran levels with the US when the latter
escalates the rhetoric.
It is the insecurity, paranoia,
and hype related to the geo-political tension and climate of fear created
by the Bush administration that’s weighing on the oil market,
not Iran, a member of OPEC, together with Saudi Arabia, they have been
promptly meeting increased demand and filling up all shortages particularly
ones from Iraq. One only needs to examine a chart of oil price movements
in the past 5 years, stop at every noticeable volatile point to determine
the right driver. Undoubtedly this volatility is the product of utter
failure on the part of Pentagon planners’ to protect the country’s
resources; today, Iraq oil output is nowhere near pre-war levels, not
to mention the vacuum that has been created in an already reeling market.
During the past five years events in Russia, Ukraine, Nigeria, Venezuela,
Saudi Arabia and in the United States have fundamentally changed business
dynamics, and there are new rules creeping on Corporate Governance practices
in that sector; the Bush administration appears to be ill positioned
to influence markets or producers, as much as it was ill prepared in
the way it overstated production quotas and dollars which would breakeven
the cost of war – the long version war
But it is Iran who is the
staunchest supporter of Palestinian rights, a strong ally to Lebanon’s
HizbAllah – a parliamentarian Islamic political party, and a constant
defender of Syrian’s right to sovereignty over the Israeli-occupied
Golan Heights. Iran is very supportive of the new Hamas government,
particularly as they denounced the use of violence and warmed up to
an Arab sponsored solution.
That’s a good enough
reason to blow Iran away – on behalf of Israel, until the last
drop of American blood. Where is the exit?
It is an Israeli merry-go-round.
Amr Ismail is a Canadian writer based in Brussels.
He’s an independent business consultant. He studied social theory
and holds a BA and a Masters in international business. Amr edits Leadaship.com