Neocon/Israel lobby strategy for getting US into war with Iran

on 15 Comments

Gareth Porter at responds forcefully to Reuel Marc Gerecht, at the Weekly Standard, calling on Israel to bomb Iran. Again, I ask, when is this type of discussion going to happen in the mainstream media, so that Americans can sort out what they really want?

the aim of Gerecht and of the right-wing government of Benjamin Netanyahu is to support an attack by Israel so that the United States can be drawn into direct, full-scale war with Iran.

That has long been the Israeli strategy for Iran, because Israel cannot fight a war with Iran without full U.S. involvement. Israel needs to know that the United States will finish the war that Israel wants to start.

Gerecht openly expresses the hope that any Iranian response to the Israeli attack would trigger full-scale U.S. war against Iran. "If Khamenei has a death-wish, he’ll let the Revolutionary Guards mine the strait, the entrance to the Persian Gulf," writes Gerecht. "It might be the only thing that would push President Obama to strike Iran militarily…." Gerecht suggest that the same logic would apply to any Iranian "terrorism against the United States after an Israeli strike," by which we really means any attack on a U.S. target in the Middle East. Gerecht writes that Obama might be "obliged" to threaten major retaliation "immediately after an Israeli surprise attack."

That’s the key sentence in this very long Gerecht argument. Obama is not going to be "obliged" to join Israeli aggression against Iran unless he feels that domestic political pressures to do so are too strong to resist. That’s why the Israelis are determined to line up a strong majority in Congress and public opinion for war to foreclose Obama’s options….

The idea of waging a U.S. war of destruction against Iran is obvious lunacy, which is why U.S. military leaders have strongly resisted it both during the Bush and Obama administrations. But Gerecht makes it clear that Israel believes it can use its control of Congress to pound Obama into submission. Democrats in Congress, he boasts, "are mentally in a different galaxy than they were under President Bush." Even though Israel has increasingly been regarded around the world as a rogue state after its Gaza atrocities and the commando killings of unarmed civilians on board the Mavi Marmara, its grip on the U.S. Congressappears as strong as ever


15 Responses

  1. Taxi
    August 1, 2010, 10:15 am

    What makes Israel think that we Americans can actually ‘win/finish’ a war with Iran?

    Just look at our own imcometence in other wars in the middle east. Clearly, so long as we keep following Israel’s advice/intelligence, we will continue to lose our power and influence, not just in the mideast, but throughout the world.

    p.s. perhpas israel made a secret deal with China to drag America into yet another unwinnable war that will bankrupt us right out of super powerdom.

    • potsherd
      August 1, 2010, 11:07 am

      Since when has the notion of “winning” had anything to do with the US going to war?

      • Citizen
        August 2, 2010, 10:37 am

        Yeah, those who take us to war are winning in the sense they keep getting more of what they want and the rest of us millions can just go fly a kite like those Pal kids are doing; and there is always another war ready-to-go in their elite toolkit. What else is The Great Game and PNAC?

  2. Citizen
    August 1, 2010, 10:23 am

    The US is being prepped for a major war with Iran; check out these two partnering resolutions wending their way through Congress now:
    link to

    Fools rush in where angels fear to tread.

    • annie
      August 1, 2010, 10:40 am

      good link citizen

      “Every war when it comes, or before it comes, is represented not as a war but as an act of self-defense against a homicidal maniac.” – George Orwell

      prior to our iraq invasion i refused to believe we would really do that. that’s exactly how i feel about attacking iran. it would be total insanity to do that.

    • MarkF
      August 2, 2010, 7:48 am

      I agree, great link. It’s a defacto declaration of war in my opinion. We support Israel’s right to defend itself. Israel attacks, we must support Israel by jumping in. It ties Obama’s hands.

  3. eGuard
    August 1, 2010, 10:53 am

    Would not Israel trigger that reaction of Obama shortly before the upcoming elections, so as to force him to take a stand & save seats, “American interests” and so? Or would Obama have any option to not react? Don’t say I have too dark a view.

    • Psychopathic god
      August 1, 2010, 11:04 am

      actually, if Obama screws his head on right, his course is quite easy: take a strong stand AGAINST militarism, AGAINST militarized and bellicose Israel, AGAINST an attack on Iran.

      The conventional wisdom is that Obama’s choice is to kowtow to Israel in order to get Jewish money and electoral support (or to appease Jewish intimidation), so that Obama can stay in office so that he can enact an Israel-centric agenda,

      OR ELSE,

      Republicans will take the White House and Congress, where they will continue and increase militarization; support out-of-control and hyper-militarized Israel, and enact an Israel-centric agenda.

      Obama has a clear field to make an heroic choice that befits his Nobel PEACE prize: repudiate his Nobel Prize speech; repudiate militarization. Demand that Israel sign on to NPT in order to advance Obama’s nonproliferation agenda; initiate rapprochement with Iran.

      Obama has not even been following from the front, he’s been the Israel lobby’s show-nigger. ONLY by making a courageous act of LEADERSHIP and statesmanship can Obama bring the US together and achieve for Israel what Israel needs. If Obama leads, the people will follow.

      • potsherd
        August 1, 2010, 11:11 am

        Don’t hold your breath, Psycho. Obama doesn’t have it in him.

      • hayate
        August 1, 2010, 3:12 pm

        Obama is the “telavivian candidate”. He’s an israeli/zionist who not only doesn’t have the umph to oppose the aggressive ziofascism, he agrees with it. He’s one of them.

  4. Citizen
    August 1, 2010, 10:59 am

    Here’s the proposed national mandatory government service–note it now requires females to register also:
    link to

    Nice way to get around a more direct military draft, yes? Note also that the early forties group are included and the usual vague weasel words allow
    endless forced extensions, as needed. In contrast, presently only males between the ages of 18 and 25 must register with the Selective Service System, and non-registration is a felony; if convicted our young men may be fined up to $250,000, imprisoned up to five years, or both. Additionally, failure to register may cause them to permanently forfeit eligiblity for various government benefits, e.g., student financial aid, government employment, including with the US Postal Service, job training, and application for US citizenship for male immigrants. Both the new bill and the current Selective Service System allow for actual draft
    whenever Congress and POTUS so order.

    Here’s Ron Paul’s take on HR 1553, the bill to take any measure deemed needed by Congress and POTUS to secure Israel. Happy?
    link to

  5. Formerly T-Bear
    August 1, 2010, 2:05 pm

    FWIW Al Jazeera is reporting:

    link to

    US has ‘plan to attack Iran’

    The highest ranking US military officer has acknowledged that the Pentagon has a plan to attack Iran if needed to prevent it from getting nuclear weapons.

    Speaking on Sunday’s “Meet the Press” programme on the US channel NBC, Admiral Mike Mullen said “the military options have been on the table, and remain on the table”.

    “I hope we don’t get to that, but it’s an important option and it’s one that’s well understood,” he added.

    Mullen said military action against Iran could have “unintended consequences that are difficult to predict in what is an incredibly unstable part of the world”.

    But allowing Iran to develop a nuclear weapon was also unacceptable, he said.

    “Quite frankly, I am extremely concerned about both of those outcomes.”

    Asked if the military has a plan to strike Iran, Mullen replied “we do”, without elaborating.

    Sounds like someone better get to actual talking with Iran PDQ and substantially.

  6. hayate
    August 1, 2010, 3:49 pm

    The anti-Iran camp seems to be made up of 2 wings. The neo-cons/ziofascists and their assorted rabble want war to destroy Iran, like they’ve done to Iraq. Think of them as the hard aggressors.

    The other wing is made up of those who want to use economic warfare, psyops and covert ops to do “regime change”. This grouping is the more “rational” zionist oligarchs and probably contains the bulk of the non-zionist capitalist aristocracies. I’ll call them neo-libs for convenience. These were the people behind the green “color revolution” against Iran last year. Think of these as the soft aggressors.

    Both wings are working to make Iran an israeloamerican/eu colony, they use different tactics and have a different strategy to do so. The unity of purpose of these oligarchs is represented in the zionist run corporate media by the almost total demonisation of Iran there. It is also represented in the zionist fake left/progressive co-optation workings. These are those who oppose hot war with Iran, but whom are supportive (or silent about) the soft aggression of the “color rev” strategy.

    So perhaps, that makes 3 wings to these imperialist, zionist operations against Iran. The neo-cons, the neo-libs on the capitalist right and their assorted cryptos working to co-opt and neutralise left/progressive opposition. Although this latter group could be thought of as a subgroup of the neo-libs, I guess.

    Both hard and soft compliment each other, and both strategies are actively being pursued. I speculate the soft strategy now has precedence, with the hard held in reserve should Iran manage to hold out. This is how they’ve operated in the Mideast before. Against Iraq, they used that soft, then hard approach. Even if the soft strategy doesn’t bring down the targeted country’s guv. It greatly weakens the country to make the open warfare hard strategy easier.

    As the Iranian guv is not submitting to these ziofascists/fascists, the question is when will israeloamerica switch precedence to the hard strategy and begin a “hot war” against the Iranians? The Chinese/Russians/less fascist members of the world community are working to stall this israeloamerican aggression as long as they can. The longer they can keep these 21st century nazis from attacking Iran, the more likely the attack wont happen due to deteriorating economic factors and the public’s weariness of the constant wars.

  7. Eva Smagacz
    August 1, 2010, 6:46 pm

    China recently invested 40 billion in Iran. They are interested in trade and pay scant attention to calls for sanctions against Iran. China seems quite unworried about prospect of Iran jumping over some Middle Eastern countries to attact Israel.

  8. esteban folsom
    August 2, 2010, 6:44 am

    god damn it
    i said something
    and i’ll say it again

    go ahead you fools
    let a couple go

    you are the ones
    that will suffer
    that terrible fate

    you may do some damage but then
    everyone will know
    where it came from

    and every one
    of your brethren
    will answer for
    your stupidity

    what a shame
    no one and i mean
    no one hates jews
    but all of us

    me included
    have had about
    enough of your

    wise up
    my friends
    your hola caustic
    is gonna look sweet

    compared to the hell
    you are courting

Leave a Reply