Iraq was a preemptive war. But that language has been discredited, so the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, a station of the Israel lobby, has put out a paper all-but-calling for military strikes against Iran, which it describes as "Preventive Military Action." Sounds a lot better.
Here's what I gleaned from a rapid preemptive reading. Military action is really the only real answer WINEP contemplates, after the diplomatic ratcheting-up fails to bite. The realists' answer–deterrence–isn't given any space here. Nor is the progressive answer: making Israel give up its nukes.
In fact, the authors don’t want Israel to do the strike against Iran because they fear it would convert a global conversation on a nuclear Iran into a “bilateral Israel-Iran issue on which many around the world would side against Israel. The situation could undercut efforts to pressure Iran not to rebuild its nuclear program.” I.e., Other countries would say, What about Israel’s nukes? But WINEP is determined to preserve Israel’s hegemony in the region. I’m having dual-loyalty twinges.
One action the authors seem to favor is hitting “vulnerable” oil facilities. Don’t worry: Oil prices won’t necessarily “soar.” No, we only have to get world reserves in order before we strike. Yeah, right.
The authors also feel that a limited strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities could lead to “revolution” in Iran, or war, but could also be “deemed a success and convince them not to go on” with building nukes. Doesn’t seem likely to me. A lot of national pride is now at stake.
Then there’s this gem. The U.S. could invade, but probably doesn’t have the stomach to in the wake of Iraq, “especially given the likelihood that a small but significant minority would be quite prepared to resist a U.S. occupation.” Got that? Only a minority would resist U.S. occupation. The rest would welcome us with flowers.
And as for international opinion, the report says the French are behind the effort to denuclear-ize Iran. WINEP spoke too soon here. Sarkozy has now been to Israel, and said, Yes he’s behind the anti-Iran initiative but he wants action from Israel re the Palestinians. “There cannot be peace without an immediate and complete halt to settlement,” he said. Not a word about moving on the Palestinian occupation and oppression here. WINEP seems to believe the road to Jerusalem lies through Tehran. Haven’t we heard this sort or rap before?
Wars Smores Phil, the more timely news is that France's first Lady's butt was safe yesterday as gun fire was heard during Sarkozy departure from Israel.
France's First Lady's Ass Protected As Secret Service Man Races For Cockpit Door Way
http://homo-sapien-underground.blogspot.com/2008/06/french-first-ladys-ass-protected-as.html
No doubt Witty & Peter D will soon be informing us that WINEP is a front group for big oil. And if that bit of cleverness doesn't work, it will be on to the next lie.
An Israeli Attack on Iran Benefits the Islamic Republic. As Israel contemplates militarily striking Iran to prevent it from acquiring nuclear weapons, Israel empowers the resolve of the Islamic Republic of Iran's hardliners to achieve greater security while harming United States strategic interests, Israeli security interests, Iranian dissident interests, and world economic interests. Monday's WSJ Editorial charges that Israel has, "no choice but to defend themselves," against the Iranian threat.
Yet even if Iran's nuclear sites were bombed, virtually nothing could prevent the regime from rebuilding its nuclear sites. Bombing Iran would only further exacerbate and reinforce the belligerence of the fundamentalist regime, alienate pro-America Iranians, radicalize moderate support behind the unpopular regime, provide a pretext for the regime to crack down on human rights, and undermine the democratic movement in Iran.
A report released by the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP), considered a major proponent of the pro-Israel lobby in the U.S., "does not advocate military action against Iran's nuclear program. The time is not right for such a decision." Instead the report considers an attack on Iran's oil infrastructure, which accounts for 80% of its export revenue, far more noteworthy.
On Thursday in the Asia Times, national and international security affairs analyst David Isenberg contends that the political shock from losing oil income would force the regime to rethink its nuclear aspirations. Conversely, he points out that an attack on Iran's oil infrastructure may force oil prices to skyrocket which would hurt consumers worldwide. News of Israel's military exercise earlier this month caused the price of U.S. July crude to rise by US$2.69 and settle at US$134.62 a barrel last Friday.
An attack on Iran's nuclear sites alone may cause crude oil to reach US$200 a barrel or more. Saturday's Washington Post article interviewed PFC Energy analyst Mr. J. Robinson West who predicted, "A raid on Iran would convulse the markets. The price would go into uncharted territory. Pick a number." The Post argues that the staggering cost of oil may dissuade U.S. military action or hamper the administration's blessing of an Israeli attack.
An Israeli attack on Iran's oil exporting infrastructure may lead to protracted war that would undoubtedly affect crude prices. Any temporary closure of the Strait of Hormuz, which ships nearly 40 per cent of the world's oil, would force oil importing nations to rely upon oil exporting countries to make up for lost output. Inevitably, the regime will retaliate against an Israeli attack and possibly against American interests in the region with powerful long range missiles.
A state of mutually assured destruction is more than likely to develop between Israel and Iran due to the spread of technology. Consequently, Israel must reassess its long term security strategy with Iran and view the nature of Iran's regime as its primary existential threat. Otherwise, only the Islamic republic stands to win.
Chuck, it's all right. Our positions and motives are clear, I think. You want to find a single party responsible for the Iraq fiasco, so, you dismiss anything suggesting that there are any bad forces involved beyond Israel Lobby. I don't dismiss the Israel Lobby connection – it is impossible, however, I loath to see the movie "Blame the Jews" again. I understand that just as it is convenient for the Israel Lobby to divert the blame, so it is convenient for other groups involved. Who profited from war? Military industry? Yes. Oil industry? Maybe. Israel? Actually, no, they miscalculated. And, as Finkelstein says here
link to zmag.org
/>
"Israel would have preferred to attack Iran. However, once those in our government, maybe for misguided reasons for all I know, decided to fasten on to Iraq – that is to attack Iraq – Israel was of course 'gung ho' because Israel is always 'gung ho' about smashing up this or that Arab country."
I also distinctly remember the mood in this country before the war which was: "we are so fucking angry; we better smack somebody right now". Never heard of calls to nuke 'em? That had little to do with Israel Lobby.
So, many factors come together and we have a war. It is also a fiasco, so, first thing people search for somebody to blame, sometimes to absolve themselves. Were the war a success, you'd hardly hear a squeak, of course.
"So, many factors come together and we have a war"
Yes – and most of those vectors came from the direction of all the disparate elements of the House of Israel. You can keep trying to dissemble them but eventually the Sabbans, Schwarzmans, and Adelsons out themselves for the whole world to see.
As for your "distinct" memories of the mood of the country prior to the war: most Jews like you were demonizing Saddam and calling for his liquidation. The mood of the country was being massaged and manipulated by Jewish interests.
Big oil, and the "interests" of big oil were what drove the US to unilaterally war with Iraq.
They were who gave Bush and Cheney the tipping edge to regard the view of a funadmentally commercial middle east credibility.
Israel and those that support Israel (except for those few whose combined interest is oil and Israel) were NOT the tipping argument or force in the equation.
Even where Walt/Mearsheimer conclude that supporting Israel in a binary way, is not in the US interest, they do so because they conclude that protection of the oil supply chain is of primary US interest.
And, Arab royalty, and large US oil mega-corporations, are ALWAYS beneficiaries of that supply chain, in ANY condition.
THAT is the elephant in the room, you blind bats that can only hear one frequency even.
Still in the room, still ignored.
I understand why those with prejudice would lend weight to "Israel caused it". I don't understand why Phil would.
cogit8, your attack on me is despicable. What do you know about me? I was actually at the big NYC demonstration against the war. (And Saddam did not need any demonization, by the way: what is he, some kind of angel now all of a sudden?)
Your suggestion that gentiles cannot think for themselves and need Jews to massage their opinions only testifies to the low opinion you have of (you) gentiles.
Peter D: Point taken, and that's why I said "most Jews like you". Apparently you were one of the six Jews who did not demonize Saddam, even though you now play the "what is he, some kind of angel" card to justify his murder. It's instructive to see all the WINEPs whining for another "strong Iraqi leader" to impose security on the country, in other words another Saddam (who doesn't mind that his own police now look like Israeli cops in Jewish blue).
Witty: And who's pushing right now with all their might for an immediate attack on Iran? "No Oil interests under here, maybe they're under the sofa…."
Whose hair is on fire over the existential threat that Iran will make it harder for Israel to kill kids throwing rocks at their 'border patrol police'.
Peter D: Point taken, and that's why I said "most Jews like you". Apparently you were one of the six Jews who did not demonize Saddam, even though you now play the "what is he, some kind of angel" card to justify his murder. It's instructive to see all the WINEPs whining for another "strong Iraqi leader" to impose security on the country, in other words another Saddam (who doesn't mind that his own police now look like Israeli cops in Jewish blue).
Witty: And who's pushing right now with all their might for an immediate attack on Iran? "No Oil interests under here, maybe they're under the sofa…."
Whose hair is on fire over the existential threat that Iran will make it harder for Israel to kill kids throwing rocks at their 'border patrol police'.
sorry for the double fault.
whose hair is on fire? Jews from Brooklyn living in Shvut Ranaan will feel so uncomfortable knowing that the next time the Jewish State murders a religious man in a wheelchair could be the last time.
"Your attack on ME…
"Saddam is he some kind of ANGEL now?
"YOUR suggestion that gentiles cannot think for themselves and NEED Jews
Sure Potamus is somewhat schizophrenic. He hears cogiteights in his head and see unjews everywhere.
cogit8, Saddam was a cruel dictator responsible for mass murders, including more than a million Iranians (tens of thousands just from the nerve gas attacks). As to his execution, you might want to check some Robert Fisk on this (yes, same Robert Fisk of the Independent, who, as you might know, is not a fiend of Israel of Israel Lobby by any stretch)
Here:
link to independent.co.uk
/>
and here:
link to independent.co.uk
/>
for example.
How about this:
link to independent.co.uk
What, Israel Lobby again? No, actually, Israel was shipping weapons to Iran back then.
I wasn't justifying anything. I was against re-writing history to suit ones needs. Saddam was a terrible person, don't make him an angel just because he was the enemy of your enemy.
Re Iran, it is obvious that Israel Lobby and Israel want and push for attack on Iran (I claim, in fact, that this – the attack on Iran – was much preferred by the same elements than attack on Iraq in 2003, but because of the circumstances and confluence of various interests Iraq was chosen; there is evidence supporting my claim). Some of it, I hope, is bluffing and posturing, because there are many people in Israel who understand that such an attack by either the US or Israel will have catastrophic consequences.
Israel fear of Iran has nothing to do with "Iran making it harder for Israel to kill kids throwing rocks at their 'border patrol police'". Partly, it is about hegemony in the region, while for many folks it is a fear of Iran obtaining nuclear weapons and attacking Israel. How justified this fear is is another story. Frankly, nobody knows for sure. Reason says that (a) nuclear attack on Israel will wipe out the Palestinians, the Jordanians and the Lebanese as well and (b) even if one translates Ahmadinejad's words of Israel that will be "wiped off the map" in the belligerent sense (rather than, as suggested by many analysts, as analogous to other regimes that vanished) from what we know of Iranian power structure, Ahmadinejad is not the one who will have his finger on the button.
However: (1) I doubt anybody will be ready to guarantee (b) above, especially since we know not too much about how things in Iran work.
(2) Other Iranian leaders voiced similar threats too, some even suggesting the the deaths of countless Muslims resulting from a nuclear attack on Israel are a reasonable price to pay for destroying Israel.
My personal opinion: the loss in life and risks from attacking Iran now are absolutely unjustifiable. I hope very much this attack will never come.
Lastly, Israel is not alone in fearing nuclear Iran. So are practically every other country in the Mideast and countries in Europe.