Critics of the Iraq war who claimed that it was a war for Israel, engineered by the neocons in the Bush administration and promoted by their allies in the media, were routinely disparaged by the well known pundits of the US Left and the leading organizations of the anti-war movement that insisted that it was a war for access and control over Iraq’s oil. This was, they declared, in so many words, a "no-brainer."
Without casting aspersions on the wisdom of the latter, this story, in which T Boone Pickens complains that US firms have been shut out of Iraq’s oil market, is but the latest to undermine the "war for oil" theory. But don’t expect what remains of the Left to admit their error anytime soon. Reuters:
the Iraqi government has awarded contracts to foreign companies, particularly Chinese firms, to develop Iraq’s vast reserves while American companies have mostly been shut out."They’re opening them (oil fields) up to other companies all over the world … We’re entitled to it," Pickens said of Iraq’s oil. "Heck, we even lost 5,000 of our people, 65,000 injured and a trillion, five hundred billion dollars."
There is another way to interpret “War for Oil.”
From Petroleum: Driving Force in Zionism:
James Petras lays waste to the “War for Oil” canard here:
When you look at outfits like JINSA, it seems almost impossible to separate Zionist motivations from war-profiteering military-industrial ones. But obviously it wasn’t a war for oil.
What I loved the most about this post is the inadvertently accurate Texan locution in the Pickens quote, “They’re opening up them (oil fields)…” although a real oil tycoon would’ve said “them there oil fields,” of course.
“them thar oil fields.”
He’s an oil tycoon, not a pirate!
The distinction between the two is rather superficial. ;)
I reckon you’re right.
And Afghanistan and Pakistan? How many Americans are there because of a whopping 100 Al Qaeda members hanging out in the Hindu-Kush? And yet we need to send more for…what again? Or: for who?
Maybe in 6 years we’ll find out that Osama died years ago or that 9/11 was a sham or choose your favorite conspiracy theory. Still, any of those absurdities would make more sense than the bullshit now used to explain our involvement in the region.
Personally, I don’t view all the so-called motives as being mutually exclusive. I think it was a convergence of interests with the ultimate goal being the removal of Saddam and regime change.
To this day, we don’t know what was discussed in early 2001 in those secret meetings between Cheney and major energy CEOs.
Cheney was also on the board of Haliburton. They, along with KBR and Blackwater received no-bid contracts in Iraq.
Oil companies enjoyed $149/ oil barrel at one point resulting in billions and billions of unprecedented profits.
The US government got a permanent base in Iraq in the form of an embassy the size of Vatican city. It can be used to run major operations in the region, spy on neighboring Iran and Syria and tap into communications hubs throughout the Middle East, something the intelligence community and the Pentagon most likely appreciate.
It was a win-win project for the elite in the US, and Israel.
At the same time, it was a lose-lose situation for US soldiers, the vast majority of US citizens and Iraqis in general. Israel lost nothing in the process.
I agree that it was a convergence of goals. You have to get control of the oil before you can shunt it off to Israel.
The fact that US firms are now being shut out of the oil deals they’re entitled to rather suggests that while the US made war for oil, it failed in its goals. It certainly failed on the Israel front.
One more piece of information.
I seem to recall a US journalist mention that among the goals for invading Iraq was controlling oil output. Shutting the proverbial tap was seen as essential to cause a drop in global oil supplies, thus driving prices up and cashing in on the profits.
It may have been Seymour Hersh, but I’m not sure at the moment.
Yeah, Israel/oil is a false dichotomy, and there were other interests involved too, those of the military industrial complex being the biggest player. That things didn’t work for the oil tycoons as they would have wanted does nothing to change what their interests were. That “trillion, five hundred billion dollars” Pickens refers to is obviously estimated future profits he thought he was entitled to.
I’m not sure this is as it seems. Could be some smoke screen to cover other under-the-table deals. What about the no-bid deals for American oil companies announced in June 2008? link to nytimes.com
I am afraid what you have here is the support of a permanent war economy, and all of the old buys that go along with this – that is, the enfranchised civilian force now active like never before. Of course, with a military presence there, no one can deny that we are in a strategic position to control this area – whoever benefits from the oil.
The second thing I would like to address is the conservative rights constant refrain during this time – “well, if this is for oil or anything else why are we spending so much money.” The simple answer is – because when it comes to filling the pockets of the few, whoever they may be (oil companies, military industrial, disaster capitalism individuals) YOU’RE money is no object. In fact, they will spend $10.00 of you’re money to make a $1.00 of their money.
Pingback: Whatever happened to the war for oil? | JewPI
I agree with Nolan’s comment that in a democracy as complicated as the U.S., it’s always most useful to think of a convergence of interests. There’s always some constituency in a position to benefit from war. And not just the KBRs and Blackwaters; first and foremeost there’s the great temptation that all presidents have to dress up in a commander-in-chief uniform and solemly vow “to do whatever it takes to keep the American people safe.” As the founding fathers warned, no president will ever be able to withstand this temptation, particularly a president whose legitimacy was as damaged as Bush Jr’s following the disputed election of 2000.
But normally when there are these constituencies pushing for war, there are also others with something to lose who are resisting. So the question isn’t who was pushing for war so much as why didn’t the normal checks and balances? There are a couple of things that were unique to this situation (a key one being the inability of the Congress to stand up to the Executive), but the most important I think was the strange behavior of our media. You only have to compare how our “liberal” media reacted to Vietnam to their behavior in 2003 to realize that something fundamental had changed.
And to explain that I think you have to look at who runs our media.
D, I think the “…normal checks and balances,” are the “checks” from the people (blank checks) that the participants (whichever elites) get, and the “balances” are those that grow at their bank. Checks and balances have always been a joke and have never been amply applied , just like “representation” which was merely a mid-way compromise to make you feel like they represent you (in fact, we did not elect Senators till the 20th century, what does that tell you?).
I agree that money talks. But for every “elite” that benefits from war for Israel, there are others (like the oil companies) that suffer. They fight it out by writing checks.
D., have you noticed how big the “reward” is for a million dollar contribution these days?
“You only have to compare how our ‘liberal’ media reacted to Vietnam to their behavior in 2003 to realize that something fundamental had changed. And to explain that I think you have to look at who runs our media. ”
D.., I agree that changes in media control explain a lot about the differences in coverage between Viet Nam and Iraq/Afghanistan. Specifically, Zionist influences in and over the media are much stronger now.
However, I don’t remember the US media raising many doubts about Viet Nam until 1967, when American casualties began to rise markedly. Up until then, I – being in the Navy at the time – regarded it as a “good war” against International Communism, and I think most Americans thought the same. As public protests grew, media opinion began to follow.
I think the American MSM have three basic instincts: follow unequivocal public opinion, follow prevailing government policy, and follow corporate interests. Obviously, these three instincts often are in conflict, the resolution of which helps provide a greater diversity of media stances than would otherwise exist.
Superimposed on these three basic instincts may be extraordinary ideological influences. In the 1960′s there was a strong liberal consensus against the threat of communism, and this consensus exerted powerful forces within the MSM.
In more recent years, two dominant ideologies have replaced anti-communism as drivers of media influence. First, there has been the religion of “free-market” capitalism, backed up by the antiquated theories of neoclassical economics. Second, there has been the religion of Zionism.
Zionism exerts its influence over the media both from within and without. Zionists frequently own the MSM, manage the MSM, exert editorial control and write the news articles and opinion pieces. The fact that there are so many more Jews now in important media positions, compared to the 1960′s, reinforces the Zionist influence, even though many of these Jews may have little or no sympathy for Zionist causes.
Most Americans have little awareness of how powerful the external Zionist influence over the MSM has been in recent years. It is an extremely well-organized, concerted effort using many dedicated organizations and most of the tools of modern information technology. There has never been anything in the nation’s history to match it; the very existence of such a political machine and its ability to crush all opposition raise doubts about the future of American democracy when, as never before, the voice of the people needs to be heard to prevent the “elite” from destroying the country.
I think this assessment is spot-on, but there’s also another factor at play which is the glorification of the military which has only grown since WWII. (Jim Lobe wrote about this in the piece on Liz Cheney and Tom Friedman agreeing that Obama’s Nobel should be an occasion to celebrate the military.) Even outside of political media, American culture is militarized: football game flyovers, celebrities entertaining the troops overseas, military personnel replacing firemen and the like as local heroes. And the “religion of Zionism” has bolstered this with its powerful Good vs. Evil WWII mythology, something Americans of all ages have internalized.
“You only have to compare how our “liberal” media reacted to Vietnam to their behavior in 2003 to realize that something fundamental had changed.
And to explain that I think you have to look at who runs our media.”
As any NYer here can tell you, in 2003 we had a massive, very middle class protest against the then imminent Iraq war. Media coverage (in the capital of media, where they could have just pointed a camera out of a midtown window): ZERO
And in a lot of ways, the reporting of Afghanistan and Pakistan is far worse than the early rah-rah-rah Iraq coverage. Because it was successfully repackaged by Obama as the comparatively ‘good’ or ‘smart’ war, the media has coasted on his election and the memory of 9/11 to avoid asking any serious questions about the war there today –like why are we making every clumsy effort imaginable to destabilize Pakistan?!? Who benefits from this mess?
Yep, 9/11 changed everything, and the media controlled by the same type of people who so obviously masterminded that, at least obvious to anyone who can actually bring themselves to really look at the evidence. Please note I don’t mean “the Jews” though, or even the many Jews who do run a large section of our media, but rather some faction of the powers that be which enjoys keeping the masses mislead.
Also, to anyone who hasn’t bothered to really look at the evidence, I recommend starting with viewing the period of free fall acceleration in the fall of WTC7, as that is physically impossible in the context of the official conspiracy theory, and rather required some yet to be identified force(s) to explain. Granted, best I can tell, most people don’t even know that three NYC skyscrapers were taken down on 9/11, as the media generally only talks about the towers.
For detailed information on specifically building 7 and the covered of that, I recommend this book. I haven’t read it myself, but I know enough of the subject and the author to know it is worth the read for those unfamiliar with the topic. Of course you can also Google plenty of information, and videos of the fall. Granted, there is a lot of nonsense on both sides of the argument across the net too, but that hold true for nearly any subject.
Mr. Blankfort,
You don’t refute an intention by talking about the end result. If I lose a race, does that mean I didn’t want to win it? The point is the Iraq war didn’t go as planned, and so whatever the initial objectives, they’re obscured due to everything that’s happened since. Of course, that won’t dissuade you from implicating Israel in every possible US government decision. I’m assuming your next big project is to prove that Israel is responsible for the health care crisis.
Maybe not health care but DEFINITELY Cash for Clunkers.
If Israel is responsible for the Iraq debacle, it’s responsible for the healthcare crisis, since it was the Iraq debacle that bankrupted the country so that we can’t afford to pay for healthcare.
Instead of blaming the decision making of your own president re the Iraq war, and the decisions of your fellow citizens both with respect to healthcare issues and who they vote for, you blame Israel. No wonder the US looks the way it does.
link to nytimes.com
Our presidents, unfortunately, have their balls clutched in the iron grip of AIPAC, while our legislators sent billions of our taxpayer dollars to Israel, so that Israelis can enjoy their free socialized medicine as Americans die.
Carnas, the oil companies were lobbying AGAINST a war in Iraq. They make their money by going in and signing legal contracts with governments which are no match for their power.
Remember when Cheney was the head of Halliburton, he was lobbying Congress to END sanctions on Iran, so they could go in and sign contracts.
The goal of EVERY US administration until that of George W Bush has to maintain stability in the oil rich Middle East. When George HW Bush decided to leave Saddam in place in order to maintain that stability, the neocons turned on him as anyone who bother to read their editorial comments in the mainstream media, the NY Times, the Washington Post, and the WSJ, as well as their weekly house organ, the Weekly Standard, would be well aware of.
The neocons laid out their plan for regime change in the Middle East and the removal of Saddam Hussein in the Project for the New American Century and the very same folks who were signers of that and who co-authored the Clean Break for Netanyahu were brought into positions of influence under GWB as they had never been before. Most of them had proved their allegiance to Israel before doing so and taking out Iraq was to be the first step with Iran and Syria coming afterward. I didn’t make up their fantasies. They did.
The notion that the US would take control of Iraqi oil also flies in the face of the arrangements that Western oil companies had made with the oil producers which produced extraordinary profits for them without any serious risk while the oil producing countries maintained the “ownership.”
The Iraq War was driven much more by the emotional and messianic agenda of neoconservatives and Christian Zionists than by rational calculations of the US oil industry. And the American government was badly burned by the enterprise. The neocons intended the Iraq War to be the first step in a series of wars organized under the World War IV meme (see the Clean Break paper) — they planned to use American military power to knock off Israel’s enemies one by one and to prepare the groundwork for building Greater Israel. They have focused on manufacturing one flimsy rationalization after another to try to justify policies that will quite likely fatally injurious to American interests in the Mideast.
Sadly,
Blankfort,
You misrepresent your own comments.
You headlined “Whatever Happened to the War for Oil?” (or maybe that was Phil or Adam).
Your thesis was that oil was minor in the mix of motives (concerns) that led to the invasion (rather than isolation, which I believe you also criticized in exagerated terms).
Phil similarly wrote hundreds of articles on “the war was for Israel”, negating (not even minimizing) the role of oil in defense and other strategists.
Its an intellectual gamble on your part, a long shot, a purity, in an organic world of mixed motivations and shifting prevailing rationales and conclusions.
Actually earlier than that. Ephraim Helavy (spelling?) tells Victor Ostrovsky that they (the Mossad bosses) want to take out Saddam at the end of one of Ostrovsky’s books. Think it’s the second one. That was in the 1989-1990 timeframe. Ostrovsky is surprised. But it’s there in black & white.
This was in the works for a long time.
Blankfort’s conclusion is ludicrous, as was Phil’s repeated earlier dismissal of the importance of oil in the mix of concerns that led to the Bush administration’s idiotic decision to undertake war when it was unnecessary, and in the manner that the war was conducted.
I’m not sure who to trust, Richard Witty or Bush’s advisor, Philip Zelikow, who said, before an audience at University of Virginia in 2002, “Why would Iraq attack America or use nuclear weapons against us? I’ll tell you what I think the real threat (is) and actually has been since 1990 — it’s the threat against Israel. And this is the threat that dare not speak its name, because the Europeans don’t care deeply about that threat, I will tell you frankly. And the American government doesn’t want to lean too hard on it rhetorically, because it is not a popular sell.”
And we know that they were thrashing around for some time before they could decide on an excuse that they thought would sell, the “WMD” thing, after abandoning several that were too ludicrous on the face.
Even Wolfowitz admitted, publicly and with such casual disdain, that he picked WMD because he could sell it to the American people: it was expedient, he said. The cynical bastard.
These ‘American people’ are 50% to blame for their current demise: they bought everything hook, line, and sinker. They exercised the arrogance of refusing to believe they could be wrong. They didn’t think; they dont think.
Nevertheless, I think of the pain some families are in these days as a result of all these bad decisions, and I can barely realize it, barely internalize it, without great heaving things inside of me screaming ‘there but for the grace of god, go I’. The shunning silence of friends of mine who are in trouble, real trouble, torn apart by what they can’t do for their kids, and it’s so bad they can’t talk about it without crumbling, is so disturbing to me. One word descriptions of their circumstances are like signs on a library door, weighted with all that’s held within. I recognize their code, gently, and buffet the wound. These are same people I warned years ago, when I was laughed at then for my alarm, branded a conspiracy theorist (a term I now hold in dripping contempt) for pointing out the lies from the beginning about the Iraq War, the involvement of Israel – oh christ, that was a hard one, I was a true believer at one time, a hardened New Yorker who wouldn’t brook any criticism of Israel or Jews in my presence, none, zero – and how this country had been taken down systematically. And I now believe it was all by design and it’s going to get worse. Because Bush refused to bomb Iran, someone has decided there’s more than one way to apply a nuclear bomb. You can do it physically or you can do it financially. And I now believe it is all by design. And someone is counting on American hardliner Jews to be that exclusively: Jewish and exclusionary; these same smart Jews, who if they applied their genius as Americans could help to fix the mess we’re in for the greater good of all , but they wont. They won’t because they’re walking around with fables of rampant anti-semitism running through their heads, and holocaust memories and whatever else drives their tribe, even though the most illustrious among them were born way after WWII. So Phil can talk about Jewish power, and he is accurate, but the power is only for the 2%. Including the rape of Wall Street.
I’m rambling.
The same parties which are now agitating for an American war against Iran were the ringleaders of the Iraq War — mostly neoconservatives and Christian Zionists strongly associated with the Israel lobby. Do you see the oil industry, or the US military or intelligence establishments, lobbying for an Iran War? Quite the contrary — they oppose it. Developments over the last few years have brought into focus precisely who it is that is driving American foreign policy into ever-escalating conflict with the nations on Israel’s enemies list.
Only some brainwashed would believe that the US invasion of Iraq or for that matter, Afghanistan and the coming one on Islamic Iran is just for oil – and not for Israel.
The Project for the New American Century (PNAC), was a Zionist think tank, which during 1997-2006 – played a very significant role in reshaping the Middle East map by Washington which has made Israel is the greatest beneficiary of the so-called “War on Terror”. Zionist William Kristol and Robert Kagan who founded the PNAC – urged Bill Clinton to invade Afghanistan and Iraq, though, both countries posed no military or economic threat to the US. The Jewish controlled mainstream media provided support to PNAC hoax by inventing propaganda lies of WMDs, Saddam’s involvement in 9/11; his invasion of Kuwait, and his use of chemical warfare against Shias and Kurds – which all were carried out by western blessings. However, to sell their evil agenda against the Muslim world – they needed a “New Pearl Harbor” some horrible tragedy to happen on the very soil of America – which did happen on September 11, 2001. Nine days after the 9/11 (September 20, 2001) – PNAC sent a letter (authors included Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz, and Scooter Libby) to Dubya Bush urging him to bring a ‘regime change’ in Iraq, while projecting Islamic Iran as “the future threat” to the US: “Over the long term, Iran may well prove a large threat to US interests in Persian Gulf as Iraq has. And even should US-Iranian relations improves, retaining forward-based forces in the region would still be a essential in US security strategy given the longstanding American interests in the region…”
The War on Terror is a Zionist racket, Stupid!
link to rehmat1.wordpress.com
Quite a lovely blog you have there, Rehmat. I’m sure people on here would appreciate your tolerance of women and minorities.
Money quote:
“While Rothschild tribe is pushing for the depopulation of the world through feminist movements, gay and lesbian culture, AIDS, deadly viruses, etc. – some of the effects can be seen in the world’s first Massonic State (USA).”
link to rehmat1.wordpress.com
Bottom line: despite all the talk here of “liberalism” and human rights, this is a breeding ground for Rehmats and his hateful ilk.
The only coming around here with the hate are people like you, carnas. I’ve made my voice heard when something Rehmat has said is objectionable — and I do, in fact, find his stance toward feminism and homosexuality to be reprehensible.
You’re just a rude version of Witty, carnas. Trying to undermine liberalism, only you don’t have quite the command of the English language that Witty possesses.
Funny enough that you couldn’t stand up to the point Rehmat was making directly here, huh?
carnas seems to be claiming that the Iraq war is making Americans fat. Or maybe it’s oil. The logic is not quite clear. We could start using olive oil, except that Israel chops down all the olive trees.
A Marxist might explain that the Iraqi oil was always going to go to wherever Capital wants it to most. Crony American capitalists thought they were going to have dibs on the oil, but the war was fought to take the oil fields away from the Iraqis for the sake of capital, not inefficient and ineffective poseurs with friends in the military or government. The war was never fought to open the oil fields for the benefit of Americans, but to open the fields for oil to be sold to the highest bidder. This unseen hand also drives the reconquest of Iran.
What’s invisible about the “hand”?
Not invisible, just not seen, like the man behind the curtain. I’ll defer to someone more qualified than me to explain it.
I think this is an admirable address by JFK. It condemns secrecy in government and emphasizes the duty of a free press to report fully and accurately.
But I don’t understand why you think that the “unseen hand” driving US policy in the Middle East is the greed of capitalists – although I certainly agree that this is an important element in most politico-economic policies of the American government. Are you unwilling to recognize the critical role of ideologies that have little to do directly with financial gain?
I didn’t say anything about capitalists, and rather was alluding to those who have no allegiance to anything but increasing their own power. Obviously financial gain is one means to that end, but such individuals will exploit any ideology they can. As JFK noted, they were the ones conducting the cold war, leading the chorus on both sides.
I have yet to see any evidence presented by Marxists or pseudoMarxists that the war was fought to take over Iraq’s oil fields. That isn’t the way it is done any more in the world of oil as anyone who pays attention to the reality and not ideology substituting for religion should be well aware. Does anyone with a modicum of intelligence really believe that the US is satisified with the Chinese getting a huge chunk of Iraqi oil on the basis of a contract that was drawn up with Saddam.
Is it not curious that George HW Bush, his National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft and his Sec of State James Baker were adamantly against the invasion of Iraq and that all of them were closer to the oil company brass than anyone in the Bush administration including Dick (Lon) Chaney whose Halliburton company, though making big profits, is not an oil company? Is it not equally curious that the “war for oil”crowd never mentions that?
Trade of Iraqi oil is occurring now. The invasion and occupation of Iraq made the trading of Iraqi oil in international markets possible. American crony capitalists are unable to understand how markets work, and cry like Vietnam Occupation veterans standing at freeway on-ramps pleading for a handout when they do not receive some property right in Iraq. Pseudo entrepreneurs have no understanding of markets, nor do pseudo strategists have any understanding of lines of communication. Capital has no concern for US satisfaction, nor does strategic policy.
That is now your limited thesis that you are objecting to, “that the war was fought to TAKE OVER Iraq’s oil fields”.
I would have thought that you would be a more astute student of the very changing and far far more nuanced methods of power relations that western oil companies (and now entirely international private equity) exerted in licensing agreements for layers on layers of the supply chain of oil reserve ownership, drilling, refining, transportation, marketing.
Witty, are you psychologically disturbed? Can you formulate an argument that isn’t entirely in the abstract? Go away. Seriously, you’re just a troll.
Remember the “benchmarks” that Iraq was supposed to meet last year? One of those was that they were supposed to sign over their oil rights to the US. The Bush administration was pressuring the Iraqis really hard on that one, but the Iraqi legislature wouldn’t agree to it. That was one of the conditions that the Bush people placed on the withdrawal of US forces from Iraq, and they were dangling it like a carrot in front of the Iraqis. Fortunately, the Iraqis didn’t bite.
It was a war for oil, and a war for Israel, and a war for the big boys to play with their toys, and a war for the war profiteers to make obscene amounts of money with no strings attached and at the expense of the US taxpayers, US servicemen and women, and the people of Iraq. It was all of those things, and also a war for balance of power and to secure permanent US bases in the Middle East, and a war to keep Iraq’s oil out of the hands of the Chinese.
You are quite correct in everything. But, as Mearsheimer and Walt said, it would not have happened without the political push from the Israel Lobby (i.e., the Zionist Power Structure, to use Jeff Blankfort’s term), which included neocons in positions of power and influence. These people were not driven by a thirst for oil or anything else but what they perceived to be Israel’s interests.
Likewise, a US military attack on Iran cannot happen without a powerful push from the same people.
I don’t disagree with that.
Well, Sarah, it will get into the hands of the Chinese. And, if course, the US oil companies would have liked to get its hand into the Iraq oil industry and some are still trying, like Conoco, by partnering with Russian Lukoil, but they could have done that without going to war. Saddam had always considered himself an ally of the US before invading Kuwait which he believed had US approval and were it not for sanctions, US oil companies could have gone into that country and negotiated contracts. That would have been nixed, of course, by the pro-Israel bully boys since taking out Saddam was number one on their agenda.
The US oil people wanted Saddam out of the way because they couldn’t control him. He had already made commitments with several other countries for Iraqi oil, favoring them over the US.
However, I expect that the US would have attacked and occupied Iraq even if that had not been the case for all of the other reasons. And I agree that the government of Israel and its strong-arm people in the US were driving the push for war here in the US. I remember watching Netanyahu on some US talk show during the months before we went in there. He was saying to the US, “Just do it. You don’t need anyone’s permission. Just do it.”
This position represents a profound change in US policy. Never forget that photo of Rumsfeld with his arm around Saddam, buddybuddy.
What changed? It wasn’t Israel. In the 80s, Israel was strongly anti-Iraq, to the point that they were selling arms to support Iran in the war, over and above what the US traitors were orchestrating. Then, with a flip and a flop, Israel decided Saddam’s teeth had been pulled and Iran would now be the enemy de jour.
In his book “A Pretext for War” James Bamford writes that “the security of Israel” was the “chief motor for war.” This view has been corroborated by Anthony Zinni and Ernest Hollings as well.
On the basis of information available to me at the end of 2003, I wrote an article for Left Curve, published in the Spring of 2004, entitled A War for Israel which can be read here:
link to leftcurve.org
Since that time, considerably more evidence has become available to make that argument even stronger.
Jeffrey’s article, incidentally, is largely responsible for my own investigations into the role of Israel and Jewish influence in American politics. Prior to that, I was a typical “leftie,” roaring about war for oil and parroting everything Noam Chomksy said.
See also Sniegoski’s “The War on Iraq: Conceived in Israel”
link to thornwalker.com
There is a relevant quote from an oil industry insider which I can’t find right now, but he basically said that the U.S. oil industry for the most part stopped spending time and money on lobbying towards Middle Eastern oil interests long ago, because it can’t compete with the Israel Lobby, which has a different agenda in the Middle East. The Lobby wants war and chaos, while the oil companies want stability and security. The bulk of the money now goes towards domestic issues the oil companies deem to be in their interests.
And what argument is that? In summary.
In summary: a war for Israel.
That would be a ludicrous conclusion.
Blankfurt’s point about the change in status from stability to willingly chaos is a good point.
But, it represents the utter failing of the Bush administration to have adopted that preference for regime change.
You minimize their responsibility as decision makers.
Witty, you didn’t read Blankfort’s article.
Jeffrey’s last name is BlankFORT, not Blankfurt.
I certainly read Blankfort’s article.
You are aware that the neo-conservative thesis was urged during most of Clinton’s administration, and was rejected as a poor policy choice.
Other choices were adopted, that included continuation of fairly severe (but often ignored) sanctions, political isolation, military semi-occupation (no fly zones).
Not invasion, not regime change though.
The weight of the evidence supporting invasion did not change materially from 1999 to 2002. Iraq was the same as it had been.
The difference was the adoption by the Bush administration of the specific neo-conservative proposal to invade, severe restrictions to input to Bush and Cheney, firming the one-way nature of “discussion” on the issue.
For Bush and Cheney, the arguing for the war became an implementation task, rather than a discussion, even with Congressional leadership.
It is even a stretch to state that neo-conservative views are for Israel over US interests. Most of the neo-conservatives that I’ve read firmly believed and solely argued that the regime change approach was in the US interest. Bush in particular was emotionally driven to “finish his father’s war” and was easily intellectually manipulated. (Cheney was THE enthusiastic participant, leader, NOT Jewish, and not passively manipulated.)
This
War is for Us
Also, for those who still have doubts, I encourage you to read Stephen Sniegoski’s “The Transparent Cabal”.
Then there was the whole issue of going to war with Iraq for oil for Israel. Article from 2003, weeks after the Iraq War started. Israel was livid that Paritzky spilled the beans; he was out within months, and Israel dreamt up a fiction in late August of that year that it was the USA that concocted the idea to have Israel take the oil. The first big US bases built in 2003 were H1, H2, and H3, in NE IRaq along the old Haifa line:
Here’s the fiction Israel created, with the US picking up the tab. Dont know if this was ever done. Anyone know?
From Haaretz: link to z.pe
It’s apparently still being talked about:
link to tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com
And all under the radar as well.
Oil, Israel, and the expensive war toys may converged as motivations for the war, but I think this article underrates Bush’s p*nis.
Its not about oil, but it is about oil.
‘The oil companies stopped attempting to influence the form of support for their interests and contracts’ (not a direct quote).
But a direct misrepresentation of reality.
Oil companies are extremely involved in the form and manner and extent of US defense of their contracts. Maybe the tributary of rational and irrational neo-conservative theses adds some obstacles to their lobbying, but that is the most of it.
Ideas into political conclusions and administrations’ actions are rivers. It is a good analogy. There is the force of the ideas themselves, combined with the channeling that the administration defines as its protocols.
Bush was responsible for the specific voices to be heard and/or excluded, compared to more open discussions in the Clinton and Obama administrations, in which the voices have weight, but ONLY the weight of the merit of their arguments.
That was different in the Bush/Cheney adminstration, which was FAR more restrictive in the range of perspectives and weight of those perspectives that were considered. Bush’s “gut”, and Cheney’s manipulations, were the leadership and structuring influences.
The RESPONSIBLE parties for the policies and decisions. The Congressional ratification process was the snow job, imposing similarly limited access to information and weight of information to Congress.
The war was for the military predominance and for oil, same as all wars. Both formerly excluded from Jewish influence at all. (Consider the historical state department and intelligence communities exclusion of “Jewish influences”, a similarly artificial exclusion of information flow.)
“Its not about oil, but it is about oil.”
You could have stopped right there. That one sentence is just so perfectly emblematic of your, ahem, multifacial rhetoric.
I was quoting you.
Richard Witty — there is a near total absence of hard empirical data in your comments, I’ve noticed — which makes it easy to assert virtually anything with commanding authority. I’m curious: do you have any personal ethnic or religious stake in Mideast politics?
lol, well played, mcbride
Spoken like an interrogator wannabe.
Richard Witty — why are you so defensive about what it is a perfectly reasonable and straightforward question? Do you have any ethnic or religious stake in Mideast politics? I don’t. As a rule in discussions about Mideast politics it’s useful to get these biases out in the open.
I have a humane stake and family and friends that live in Israel. And, a sympathy resulting from study of history and active Zionist family.
My concern is dual.
I am extremely concerned about the well-being and security of Israelis, and only very concerned about the well-being and security of Palestinians.
How about you? Do you have a pro-ethnic investment in the politics? How about an anti?
Richard Witty — my only stake in the Mideast is the American interest, period. The identity politics on all sides of the local conflicts there bore me to tears and strike me as being decidedly un-American, in terms of American ideals of ethnic and religious equality and pluralism, and strict separation of church of state. It didn’t even occur to you to mention the American interest in the description of your loyalties — not unusual behavior among pro-Israel, pro-Arab and pro-Muslim partisans to the Abrahamic cult jostling in that neck of the woods. I felt the same way about the Irish-British conflict, and I have ethnic and religious ties to both sides in that bar fight. I think it is of the utmost importance for American politicians to begin focusing like a laser beam on the American interest in the Mideast, otherwise the United States is looking at a looming catastrophe on the grand chessboard of international politics.
Wall Street Journal. (Eastern edition). New York, N.Y.: Jan 28, 1991. pg. A12
Leaders of the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee now acknowledge it worked in tandem with the Bush administration to win passage of a resolution authorizing the president to commit U.S. troops to combat. The behind-the-scenes campaign avoided Aipac’s customary high profile in the Capitol and relied instead on activists — calling sometimes from Israel itself — to contact lawmakers and build on public endorsements by major Jewish organizations.
“Yes, we were active,” says Aipac director Thomas Dine. “These are the great issues of our time. If you sit on the sidelines, you have no voice.”
In the end, pro-Israel lawmakers were divided on the vote. But the lobby’s influence nonetheless was crucial, especially in helping the White House pick up Democratic support that has typically been denied to recent presidents in other foreign-policy confrontations such as the covert war in Nicaragua. Democrats who have benefited from large contributions by pro-Israel political action committees were among the swing votes, and the administration says that having pro-Israel liberals behind the resolution made it easier to hold moderate Republicans as well.
One Democrat who voted for the resolution is Nevada Sen. Harry Reid, who received $155,590 from pro-Israel PACs when he was running for the Senate in 1986. Mr. Reid and other Democrats who voted for the resolution say their votes had nothing to do with the assistance they have received from pro-Israel groups. Still, in states as diverse as Nebraska, Alabama, California and New York, the administration won support by tapping into pro-Israel sentiment; at the very least, the Israel factor reinforced some wavering lawmakers by giving them an opportunity to satisfy an important constituency.
Rarely have the stakes been higher — or has a case of money and ethnic politics been more sensitive and complex. The debate revealed a deep ambivalence among Jewish lawmakers over what course to follow, pitting their generally liberal instincts against their support of Israel. Friends and families were divided. And even as some pro-Israel advocates urged a more aggressive stance, there was concern that the lobby risked damaging Israel’s longer-term interests if the issue became too identified with Jewish or pro-Israel politics.
“American Jews should have no fear in expressing their support for the president of the United States,” says Jerry Lippman, editor of the Long Island Jewish World.
Yet Aipac took pains to disguise its role, and there was quiet relief that the vote showed no solid Jewish bloc in favor of a war so relevant to Israel. “It isn’t such a bad idea that we were split,” says one Jewish lawmaker.
Iraqi missile attacks on Tel Aviv have since helped to solidify opinion; there is an effort now to pull together in anticipation of costly demands for increased aid to Israel. People on both sides of the issue “had Israel as part of their concern,” says Malcolm Hoenlein, executive director of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations.
But the debate has nonetheless left a trail of recriminations and political maneuvering. Republicans see an opportunity in the war vote to drive a wedge between Israel supporters and Democrats. GOP Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah, for instance, has chastised pro-Israel Democrats who opposed the war resolution; the Mormon lawmaker recently startled a reporter from the Washington Jewish Week newspaper by unbuttoning his shirt to display a silver mezuzah, a locket-like amulet with a Hebrew prayer inside.
New York Republican Sen. Alfonse D’Amato’s list of possible re-election foes next year includes state Attorney General Robert Abrams, who is Jewish, and Rep. Robert Mrazek, a pro-Israel Democrat who opposed the war resolution; Sen. D’Amato lately has redoubled his efforts to show support for Israel, making a high-profile appearance at its embassy two weekends ago, traveling to Israel last week and implicitly accusing pro-Israel Democrats of joining “this chorus of `Let’s give Saddam some more time.’”
The pressure to mobilize pro-Israel forces on the Gulf issue came foremost from Rep. Stephen Solarz, the administration’s chief Democratic ally in the House. After meeting with the Brooklyn Democrat, leaders of the Reform Jewish Movement approved a statement in December in support of the use of force, despite the misgiving of some members. At a private dinner two weeks later, Mr. Solarz urged Aipac’s Mr. Dine to have the group play a larger public role in the debate. The congressman bluntly describes pro-Israel lawmakers who opposed him as “tragically shortsighted” in their understanding of American-Israeli interests.
Among the congressman’s allies was his longtime friend, New York attorney Bernard Nussbaum, who serves as finance chairman for Rep. Nita Lowey (D., N.Y.) and is on the advisory board of the Washington Political Action Committee, a proIsrael PAC. Mr. Nussbaum was part of a strong — albeit unsuccessful — effort by Jewish supporters of Rep. Lowey to convince her to support the resolution. (Mr. Nussbaum refuses to discuss the matter.) “She came under a lot of pressure,” said Richard Maass, a past president of the American Jewish Committee who opposed the war resolution. “My message to her was, `Stand firm.’”
Like Aipac itself, Mr. Solarz’s often-unnoticed strength is his ability to reach beyond his traditional base and find votes among Southern conservatives such as Rep. Ralph Hall, a Texas “Boll Weevil” Democrat who is warmly supportive of the New York congressman — and Israel. More broadly, pro-Israel PACs have poured money into campaigns for Southern Democrats not immediately identified with their cause.
For example, the Alabama delegation voted in a bloc with Mr. Bush in both the House and Senate. At first glance, this can be ascribed to the conservative, pro-military character of the state. But pro-Israel PACs have also cultivated Democrats there in recent years. A total of 25 pro-Israel PACs gave Sen. Howell Heflin $87,350 toward his re-election in the 1989-1990 election cycle. Federal records also list $51,375 in contributions from pro-Israel committees to then-Congressman Richard Shelby when he ousted GOP Sen. Jeremiah Denton in 1986.
Nevada is an example of a sparsely populated state where Aipac has maximized its leverage. Richard Bryan, a former governor and ally of Sen. Reid’s, received $86,750 from pro-Israel PACs in 1987-1988 — more than seven times the contributions to the man he defeated, GOP incumbent Jacob Hecht, who is himself Jewish. Sen. Bryan voted with President Bush on the war resolution.
Sen. Reid, whose alliance with the pro-Israel lobby goes back to his days on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, says, “I’m sure {Israel} was a factor” in his vote, “but you had 100 different factors.” In deciding, he recalls speaking with three Nevadans: a political science professor, a former governor and war veteran, and Dorothy Eisenberg, a Democratic activist and the treasurer of a pro-Israel PAC based in Las Vegas that has supported him in the past.
Ms. Eisenberg recalls speaking to the senator about her family in Israel, but though she supported the resolution, both she and he say she never lobbied him. “I trust his judgment,” she says.
In the case of Tennessee Sen. Albert Gore, another Democrat who voted with the president, the ties with pro-Israel supporters are intellectual as well as political. Just as Israel faces a hostile world, those who support it often come to favor a more muscular foreign policy for the U.S. Mr. Solarz, who personally lobbied Mr. Gore, is part of this school. So is New Republic editor in chief Martin Peretz, who backed the war resolution and is a close friend of the senator as well as a major contributor to the pro-Israel National PAC.
“I wouldn’t think this was an Israel-driven vote for him,” says Mr. Peretz, and the senator himself agrees. Still, Mr. Gore’s vote not only set him apart from many in his party but also raised his profile among Israel supporters. “It will definitely raise his stature,” says Morris Amitay, a Washington lobbyist and pro-Israel activist.
—————————-
Thanks, Bob, for these historically important links.
The Washington Post Washington, D.C.: Sep 6, 1990. pg. a.36
Israel’s American supporters, who have long tried to get the Bush administration to pursue a tough line against Iraq, are now deeply uneasy about the shape U.S. policy on the Middle East is taking, fearing that the United States’s new Arab alliances will lead to a tilt away from Israel.
Israel’s advocates still support the administration’s response to Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait and welcome moves that could weaken Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. “We remain completely in support of what they’ve done in the gulf,” said Malcolm Hoenlein, executive director of the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations. “That’s an issue on which there’s complete consensus.”
But behind the consensus lurks the worry that over the long run, America’s newly strengthened alliances with Saudi Arabia and Egypt will take priority over America’s ties with Israel and lead to increased American pressure on Israel to reach a settlement with Palestinians over the future of the West Bank.
For the Israel lobby, there is a bittersweet quality to the current situation. For months before Iraq invaded Kuwait, Israel’s backers stood almost alone in warning the Bush administration about the dangers Saddam posed to stability in the Middle East. Saddam’s invasion effectively won the argument for the pro-Israel forces and produced the anti-Iraq policy they were seeking. But that policy is now taking a form that leaves Israel’s allies anxious.
Alfred H. Moses, chairman of the board of governors of the American Jewish Committee, cast the concern as a question. “Will the emphasis in the future be more on protecting oil in the gulf than on protecting Israel in the Mediterranean?”
Rep. Mel Levine (D-Calif.), one of Israel’s staunchest congressional supporters, said he worried that Israel’s role as “the cornerstone of American policy in the Middle East will be eroded both by the massive flow of arms to the region and by the United States’s growing closeness to regimes that continue to deny Israel’s right to exist.”
“Opposition to Iraq is one thing,” said Rep. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.). “Eighty thousand American troops side-by-side with Saudis, Syrians and Egyptians is another.”
The qualms of the pro-Israel community will have their first practical effect on congressional skirmishing over the administration’s plan to sell $6 billion to $8 billion worth of arms to Saudi Arabia and to forgive Egypt’s $7 billion debt to the United States.
Almost no one expects the administration’s proposal to founder, and this alone suggests how much the world has changed since Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait. In the past, Israel’s supporters have been quite successful in limiting arms sales to Arab nations.
This time, Israel’s friends are likely to settle for a plan to balance arms sales to Arabs with new sales to Israel so that the Jewish state can maintain what Rep. Howard L. Berman (D-Calif.) called “qualitative superiority.” There is also talk of partial forgiveness of Israel’s debts.
At the heart of the pro-Israel critique of the new Arab arms purchases will be the argument that Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait showed how easy it is for arms sold to “moderate” Arab states to end up in the hands of “radical” states-as U.S. arms sold to Kuwait ended up in Iraqi hands.
“I have heard no argument that this weaponry will constitute an effective deterrent against an Iraqi invasion,” Berman said. “I’m more concerned that these weapons will become part of an Iraqi arsenal. What happened to the weapons we shipped to Kuwait?”
Schumer predicted that Congress would try to put strings on the Arab arms sales, but said he worried that these would prove ineffectual. “The strings can be snapped by the country that owns the weapons,” he said.
Israel’s supporters are not entirely gloomy. Their hope is that America’s new ties with the anti-Iraq Arab states will make it easier for the United States to push them toward recognizing Israel. And they feel that Saddam’s actions more than vindicated their early warnings.
When the Israeli government and Israel’s American supporters began their warnings about Saddam earlier this year, these were seen-even by some of Israel’s American friends-as an attempt to divert attention from the Palestinian campaign for a homeland and to reduce pressure on the Israeli government for negotiations on the future of the West Bank.
“At the time, there was concern among a number of people that the worries about Iraq were an attempt to deflect answering questions about the peace process,” said David Ifshin, a Washington lawyer and Democratic activist who has long toiled in the pro-Israel cause. “As it turns out, their concerns about Iraq were obviously prescient.”
Levine and Hoenlein argued that Saddam’s invasion and its fallout-including support for Saddam from the leadership of the Palestine Liberation Organization-buttressed many points that Israel’s supporters have been making for a long time.
Levine said the invasion should “disabuse Israel’s critics” of the idea that the Jewish nation’s alleged intransigence toward the Palestinians was the primary cause of instability in the Middle East, when in fact the main cause was Arab radicalism.
And Hoenlein said the Palestinian response should increase American wariness about the PLO leadership and even of King Hussein of Jordan. “Many who have been suggested as potential partners for peace have shown their true colors in supporting Saddam Hussein,” said Hoenlein.
But Israel’s supporters are concerned that whatever gains Israel may make in the short term will be lost in America’s new Arab alliances. Ifshin said that Arab countries that supported the United States now might “present a bill later” and “pressure the United States to put pressure on Israel on the West Bank.”
Stuart Eizenstat, who was a top aide to former president Jimmy Carter, said Israel’s supporters had broader worries.
Eizenstat noted that for more than a decade, Israel’s U.S. supporters had successfully promoted a policy that cast Israel as America’s “principal strategic ally” in the Middle East, a nation militarily capable of defending U.S. interests in the region. They did so, he said, in order to base Israeli-American friendship not simply on “indefinable moral, sentimental, democratic values” but on the harder ground of coinciding military interests.
Israel’s supporters, he said, fear “that all this is going to be thrown away and that the real strategic alliance will be with Egypt, Saudi Arabia and even Syria.” Schumer said that the Iraqi conflict was laying the basis for exactly the sort of realignment in the Middle East that American friends of the Arab world had long been seeking. “It’s a State Department Arabist’s delight,” Schumer said.
Eizenstat said he did not share these fears, partly because the strategic relationship with Israel was based on an East-West rivalry that no longer exists and that an alteration in Middle Eastern alliances was thus inevitable long before Iraq invaded Kuwait. Eizenstat said the U.S.-Israel ties would remain strong for the reason they have always been: Shared values between the two countries-including the value of democracy.
Great articles. It’s like Groundhog Day: the same theme keeps reoccurring. Iraq is now Iran, and Arab alliances are again vilified. Any momentum toward peace with Palestinians is unwanted and must be rendered ineffectual by turning toward more “pressing” issues: then Iraq, now Iran.
It’s all engineered by Israel and its American advocates. They are damn good at what they do.
Great article Jeffrey and also kudos to James Petras. If it were up to the US oil companies they’d be doing business in Iran right now, as in Saddam’s Iraq. Sure they’re not the most transparent, pro-market regimes in the world, but neither is Nigeria. They don’t make the money they do by doing only easy deals. The last thing they need is war. The warmongers are Jews loyal to Israel.
The more the Israel lobby bends itself into pretzel knots to downplay or deny entirely its activities, the more curiously conspicuous it becomes. Pro-Israel activists, not the oil lobby, played the lead role in engineering the Iraq War — the historical record couldn’t be more clear on this matter. And these very same activists are now in the forefront in agitating to escalate the Afghanistan War and to attack Iran.
Not only can an argument be made that the second war in Iraq was made on Israel’s behalf, but the first one, as well, as the article from the Wall Street Journal from 1991 reproduced above would seem to attest, despite the concern expressed by some Jewish members of Congress that the US would desert Israel for the sake of an alliance with its Arab lackeys.
An article with even more details then this one was published in the Washington Jewish Week about the same time which described how it was important that the war not be seen as being for Israel (Gulf War One!). This required getting senators in the AIPAC stable with minimum Jewish constituencies to vote for the war while the votes of Jewish senators would be divided.
Still, the Senate was sitting on the fence until the House’s Mr. Israel, Tom Lantos (and there is always keen competition for that title) , assisted by the Hill & Knowlton PR firm, brought the Kuwaiti ambassador’s daughter into his staged Human Rights Caucus hearing, pretending to be a nurse who had just escaped from Kuwait, to testify as to atrocities she had seen committed by Iraqi soldiers in the hospital where she claimed to have been working, namely the throwing of some 20 Kuwaiti babies out of their incubators in order to take the incubators back to Iraq. The story was a complete hoax but Congress and even Amnesty International went for it,condemning the fiction as a war crime, and so we had Gulf War One.
Lantos, who made up one story after another about he survived and then became a hero in Hungary during the Nazi occupation, used to represent Israel in countries in which it had no diplomatic representation, according to an article in the Jerusalem Post. One would think that might have violated his oath as a member of the US Congress, but we know when it comes to Israel, as with everything else, there are no rules it or its supporters are required to obey.
A sidenote: Tom Lantos features prominently in the revelations of Sibel Edmonds:
Ex-FBI Translator (Sibel Edmonds) Claims Spying at DoD
Somewhere in my computer is a more recent article than the Washington Jewish Week you cite that quotes AIPAC directors saying the same thing about how to always make the Jewish look divided…and I think Helena Cobban in her current article in The Nation (“Confessions of an AIPAC Veteran”) quotes Tom Dine saying the same thing, but dont hold me to it. After a while, all these articles blend into together in my head.
Everything to do with Israel in this country seems to be based on war: is you, or is you ain’t. And because it’s war, deception is deemed permissible in every instance of protecting it, advancing it, or getting more money from taxpayers for it. Imagine what that part of the world could be like if Israel, as a nation, were enlightened, instead of the user interface for Dungeons and Dragons.
correction: “always make the Jewish senators, house members, and top organizations, look divided…”
How does this principle account for the regular near-unanimous votes for any congressional resolution upholding Israel’s right to kill thousands of Arabs in the course of “defending itself?”
One often gets the impression that neoliberals in the Democratic Party, like Richard Holbrooke, Dennis Ross and Rahm Emanuel, are playing a good cop/bad cop routine with neoconservatives in the Republican Party. Both factions are arms of the same lobby, and pursuing the same objectives. Differences between the two groups are being promoted as a deliberate deception — the lobby is controlling both sides.
That’s the American military dictatorship in a nutshell. “More money for the Pentagon or more money for the Pentagon, it’s your choice, American people!”
“Everything to do with Israel in this country seems to be based on war.”
I think that’s because Zionists, at their core, are people who think of themselves as at war with the world. That’s the frisson that gives the whole thing it’s psychological appeal. And that worldview can’t help but be reflected in their policy choices.
On perpetual conflict and war between the ingroup and the entire world, review the covers of a few decades of Commentary (the lead journal of neoconservatism) — the theme rather shrieks at one. The phrase “xenophobic cult” comes to mind. The members of the cult are so immersed in this mindset that I don’t think they realize how peculiar they look to the rest of the world. The conflicts they create are, of course, purely pro-active and endlessly self-perpetuating. Conflict for them is both a drug and a means of maintaining cult cohesion.
Conflict for them is both a drug and a means of maintaining cult cohesion.
And, without having the slightest intelligence on any of their actual portfolios and positions, I’m just guessing they’re not out shorting any of the arms industry giants. (And isn’t procuring arms deals Richard Perle’s actual profession?)
War profiteering definitely plays a major role in the activities of the neocons — take a good look, for instance, at the complexion of JINSA, the Defense Policy Board and the AEI. But for most neocons, I suspect that ethnic messianism and cultism of the xenophobic variety is the primary factor in their mental world.