Wexler told Israelis, American people will support attack on Iran if talks are tried and fail

on 68 Comments

From the Wikileaks US Embassy cables. Robert Wexler is the former Florida congressman who has gone on to head a Jewish organization, and who people are always hinting is about to join the Obama administration as a Middle East envoy. How does he operate? Here are notes of a high-level meeting in Israel in May 2009 in which Wexler is representing Obama’s policy to Israel Defense Forces Intelligence Chief, Major General Amos Yadlin:

Rep. Wexler went on to discuss that there is a third good option in that the President may have better leverage with the American public to support action if engagement efforts are attempted and failed. Rep Wexler recommended that the Israeli people need to consider the US perspective and public opinion. MG Yadlin responded that he is not recommending the US enter a third front, but it has to be understood that Israel sees things differently and that Israel has to be ready and can not remove the military option from the table. Rep Wexler stated that he expected Israel would be pleasantly surprised by the President’s acceptance of all possible options in regards to Iran.

And along the same lines, here’s Andrew Shapiro, assistant secretary of state [A/S] for political-military affairs (who once said that Lincoln was for a Jewish state), assuring the government of Israel (GOI) in July ’09 that diplomacy with Iran will soon be exhausted:

A/S Shapiro made clear that a nuclear armed Iran was unacceptable to the United States. He referenced Secretary Clinton’s July 15 foreign policy address at the Council on Foreign Relations, noting the offer of engagement with Iran — but reinforcing that such an offer is not indefinite. A/S Shapiro argued that an Iranian rejection of our offer to engage will only help bolster international support for increased sanctions. He also pointed to the uncertain situation following the Iranian elections — it was unclear at this point how the regime in Tehran will react to our offer of engagement. That said, he repeated that the engagement offer was not unlimited, noting that the United States will reassess its engagement strategy with Iran later this fall. 

How many of these people do you suppose there are?


68 Responses

  1. Kathleen
    November 28, 2010, 8:37 pm

    “In addition to hours of policy review, the PM had been provided significant amounts of intelligence from the IDI and Mossad on Iran’s nuclear program.”

    The same stovepipe that fed the Israeli agents in the Office of Special Plans, Office of Net Assessment some of the false WMD pre war intelligence.

    They want Iran real bad.

    • hophmi
      November 29, 2010, 10:01 am

      “The same stovepipe that fed the Israeli agents in the Office of Special Plans, Office of Net Assessment some of the false WMD pre war intelligence.

      They want Iran real bad. ”

      Actually, the entire world seems to want Iran real bad. The revelation for you people should be that Iran is not an Israel-only issue.

      • Sumud
        November 29, 2010, 10:20 am

        Actually, the entire world seems to want Iran real bad. The revelation for you people should be that Iran is not an Israel-only issue.

        Actually, they don’t. But those that do are basing their assessments on the “smoking laptop” which purports to show Iranian plans nuclear weapons plans, and is thought to have originated …with Israel.

        Hmm, Israel providing fake intelligence to take the US to war in the Middle East, gee that sounds familiar..

        ‘Report Ties Dubious Iran Nuclear Docs to Israel’
        link to original.antiwar.com

      • hophmi
        November 29, 2010, 11:23 am

        “Actually, they don’t. ”

        Actually, they do, as is clear from cable after cable indicating exactly that. The Arab states are frightened of a nuclear Iran that would upset the balance of power in the Middle East. Europe is afriad of a nuclear Iran with missiles that could strike European capitals.

      • Sumud
        November 29, 2010, 11:45 am

        ctually, they do, as is clear from cable after cable indicating exactly that.

        Start quoting some then hophmi.

        You asserted “the whole world”. You are wrong. There is no consensus on Iran among arab states even, let alone “the whole world”.

      • Mooser
        November 29, 2010, 11:35 am

        Yeah hophmi, it’s in the US’s best interest to do what all those corrupt regimes in the ME say they want us to do, sure!
        But then I shouldn’t wonder you take this hackneyed tack. They are the same regimes whose actions you always point to do excuse Israeli intransigence.

  2. Kathleen
    November 28, 2010, 8:42 pm

    “2. (S) Rep. Wexler asked MG Yadlin to expand on the differences in the interpretations of the intelligence. MG Yadlin explained that until 2003, Iran had violated the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty by having a weaponization group and although Iran could show civilian uses for a missile program and a fissile program, there was no justification for a weaponization group. He went on to say that Iran halted its program in 2003 after the invasion of Iraq, but reinvigorated the program in 2005. He expressed that some in the US agree with this and others do not. He went on to explain that Israel is not in a position to underestimate Iran and be surprised like the US was on 11 September 2001.”

    Wexler needs to register as an agent of another country under the Foreign Agents Registration Act

    If folks have never read former weapons inspector Scott Ritter’s book “Target Iran” take the time to read

    • ig
      November 29, 2010, 7:48 am

      “Wexler needs to register as an agent of another country under the Foreign Agents Registration Act”

      I would just like to point out that Wexler was endorsed by the JStreet PAC.

      I know, it’s a nuanced situation. :)

      • Kathleen
        November 29, 2010, 8:51 am

        So. Still working harder for Israel than the U.S. J Street endorsement does not change that fact one bit

      • ig
        November 29, 2010, 7:22 pm

        Kathleen, I am sorry that you understood my comment as meant to exonerate Wexler. This was not my intent. My point was to show the type of politician that JStreet endorses. Thus my post is meant as a criticism of JStreet. The use of the word “nuanced” was supposed to indicate this.

        Don’t worry, my wife often tells me that nobody understands my humor. ;)

  3. Kathleen
    November 28, 2010, 8:57 pm

    “The cables names Saudi donors as the biggest financiers of terror groups, and provide an extraordinarily detailed account of an agreement between Washington and Yemen to cover up the use of US planes to bomb al-Qaida targets. ”

    Remember reading in Ron Susskind’s book “The Price of Loyalty” that Cheney and team wanted former Secretary of the Treasury Paul O’Neil gone when he started to investigate Saudi’s money involved with the terrorist attack on 9/11. O’Neil went bye bye

  4. CTuttle
    November 28, 2010, 9:03 pm

    Bibi in Apr. ’07 and the opposition leader, with Rep. Ackerman…

    ¶6. (C) Netanyahu commented that Shimon Peres had admitted to
    him that the Oslo process had been based on a mistaken
    economic premise, and as a result European and U.S.
    assistance to the Palestinians had gone to create a bloated
    bureaucracy, with PA employees looking to the international
    community to meet their payroll. Netanyahu predicted that
    Palestinians would vote for Abbas if they believe that he can
    deliver the money. He suggested putting in place an
    “economic squeeze with an address,” so that Hamas would
    receive the popular blame. Asked if Fatah knew how to
    conduct an election campaign, Netanyahu said the Palestinian
    patronage system should be forced to collapse, which would
    have an immediate impact since the entire Palestinian economy
    was based on graft and patronage. Instead, he asserted, the
    opposite was happening. Hamas was also handling the prisoner
    release issue well since they had created the impression that
    Hamas was in control of the process and “sticking it to the

    ¶7. (C) Congressman Ackerman asked if Abbas would survive
    politically. Netanyahu said he was unsure, since politics
    were stressful, especially Palestinian politics. The policy,
    he added, should be to starve the NUG. If any money is
    given, it should go directly to Abbas. Netanyahu said it was
    not clear the GOI has a policy, there was a general climate
    of weakness. […]

    11. (C) Netanyahu stated that a return to the 1967 borders
    and dividing Jerusalem was not a solution since further
    withdrawals would only whet the appetite of radical Islam.
    Ackerman asked if the Palestinians would accept peace based
    on the 1967 lines. Netanyahu said he would not agree to such
    a withdrawal since the 1967 lines were indefensible, but he
    added that the “right of return” was the real acid test of
    Arab intentions. Instead of Israel making more step-by-step
    concessions, Israel should insist that further concessions be
    linked to reciprocal steps toward peace. The Palestinians
    must drop the right of return and accept Israel’s right to
    exist. The Arab initiative did not meet this standard since
    it keeps the right of return open. Israel will only have a
    peace partner when the Palestinians drop the right of return.
    Asked whether Israel could accept case by case exceptions,
    Netanyahu insisted not one refugee could ever return. Israel,
    after all, was not asking for the right of Jews to return to
    Baghdad or Cairo.

    ¶12. (C) Netanyahu said UNSCR 242 was not a bad formula since
    it did not specify precisely from which territories Israel
    would withdraw. After the withdrawals from Gaza and Lebanon,
    there was deep disillusionment among Israelis about the
    principle of land for peace. Even the noted Israeli leftist
    writer AB Yehoshua had said in a recent interview that he
    despaired about peace because the Arabs wanted all of Israel.
    From 1948 to 1967, the conflict had not been about occupied
    territories, but that point had been obscured by “effective
    propaganda.” The root of the conflict was an Arab desire to
    destroy Israel, which had now become part of the larger
    ambitions of radical Islam.

    ¶13. (C) The 1967 borders were not the solution since Israel
    was the only force blocking radical Islam’s agenda of
    overrunning Jordan and Saudi Arabia. Netanyahu proposed that
    Israel offer to work with the Saudis against Iran. If Iran
    was not stopped, there would be no agreement with the
    Palestinians, and the peace treaties with Jordan and Egypt
    would come under tremendous pressure. There could be no
    deterrence against “crazies” such as Ahmadinejad. Netanyahu
    advised Congress to expedite the legislative effort for
    divestment. If that did not work, we could reconsider other
    options. Congressman Ackerman said that if Netanyahu came to
    Washington, he would hold a hearing on divestment.

    • Kathleen
      November 28, 2010, 10:16 pm

      “11. (C) Netanyahu stated that a return to the 1967 borders
      and dividing Jerusalem was not a solution since further
      withdrawals would only whet the appetite of radical Islam.”

      They need to recognize Israel’s right to exist, they need to recognize Israel as a Jewish state, they do not whet the appetite of radical Islam. One excuse after the next

  5. syvanen
    November 28, 2010, 9:06 pm

    Wexler tells the Israelis:

    Rep Wexler recommended that the Israeli people need to consider the US perspective and public opinion.

    That is a hoot. The Israelis probably laughed in his face (no not that bad, but as soon as they left the room). Didn’t Wexler get the memo: Israel determines the US perspective and guides US public opinion. I can’t believe that he is so naive as to believe that US perspectives and US public opinion are not molded by Zionist forces inside this country.

    • Kathleen
      November 29, 2010, 8:53 am

      “I can’t believe that he is so naive as to believe that US perspectives and US public opinion are not molded by Zionist forces inside this country.”

      This has been changing a great deal the last 10 years. Folks should keep pushing. The facts are getting out there.

  6. Kathleen
    November 28, 2010, 9:14 pm

    So the way I understand this the New York Times, The Guardian etc have cherry picked what will and will not be released. Is that right?

    Bill Keller and the New York “bloody”Times will be sure to take anything having to do with Iran and pound pound pound

  7. Kathleen
    November 28, 2010, 9:44 pm

    “5. (S) GOI officials also expressed continued interest in reviewing the QME report prior to its submission to Congress.”

    Israel’s interest in reading U.S. reports before our U.S. Congress

    Israel’s reps not to happy about this

    “19. (S) Buchris referenced a press report from Secretary Clinton’s trip to Jakarta in which she said the United States would consider providing a defense umbrella for moderate Arab countries in the Middle East should Iran acquire a nuclear weapon. Buchris argued that such a statement already conceded the idea of a nuclear-armed Iran. MFA Deputy Director General for Strategic Affairs Alon Bar also raised the Secretary’s Jakarta statement; A/S Shapiro stated that the Secretary’s comments did not indicate a new policy approach, but were meant as a deterrent factor toward Iran’s nuclear weapons ambitions — not as a concession — and that journalists covering the trip attempted to make more out of the statement than was intended.”

  8. Kathleen
    November 28, 2010, 10:02 pm
  9. Kathleen
    November 28, 2010, 10:06 pm

    “If Iran was not stopped, there would be no agreement with the
    Palestinians, and the peace treaties with Jordan and Egypt
    would come under tremendous pressure.”

    Israel one excuse after the other. They will not recognize that we have the right to exist, they will not recognize that Israel is a Jewish state, it’s Iran. Look over there not over here no over there

  10. Kathleen
    November 28, 2010, 10:26 pm

    link to raceforiran.com
    “Q: Recently you mentioned a set of conditions for talks set by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Please remind us of those—and in what manner does Iran expect Western nations to respond to those conditions?

    A: Three conditions were set by us. These conditions will not prevent negotiations. These conditions are really the answer to three questions.

    The first is that they must state whether the negotiations are based on friendship or of enmity.

    Second, what is their view on the atomic weapons of the Zionist regime?

    Third, what is their position on the latest ratifications of the Nonproliferation Treaty [NPT]?

    Naturally, if they decide to negotiate based on friendship, Iran will react in one way. If they negotiate on the basis of enmity, we will react in another way. If they are committed to the changes made in the NPT, Iran will negotiate in one way; if not, we will respond in another way. The same goes for their stance on the Zionist regime atomic weapons.

    And if they do not state any response on these questions, it means they have not chosen the path of friendship. Not answering these questions means they have decided not to commit to nuclear disarmament and support the Zionist regime being armed with nuclear weapons.’

  11. Gellian
    November 28, 2010, 10:31 pm

    There’s a theory kicking around the ‘net that Wikileaks basically is Israel; i.e. that Israel, or someone friendly to it, is feeding all this stuff to Assange and co.

    It’s probably a conspiracy theory with no merit; who knows? I know I don’t. But a favorite axiom to apply in trying to figure it all out is that of cui bono (who benefits?).

    I gotta say, from what I’ve seen so far Israel comes out smelling like a rose from all this. From what the Guardian and Spiegel websites are reporting, the Arabs really are terrified of Iran and want us to bomb it; so are some other countries. Even the stuff you’re posting here, Phil, only makes it look all the more like us democracies gotta stick together. A fair reading of it all suggests that our congressmen are far from being alone in the world in wanting to bomb Iran to prevent their nuclear ambitions; heck, practically everyone is on our side (including the Arabs!).

    So despite the hype I don’t see Israel hurting one iota from any of this; on the contrary, they’re benefiting enormously.

    Which is funny, because I didn’t really expect that.

    • Jeffrey Blankfort
      November 28, 2010, 11:05 pm

      There are people who think everything negative that happens in the world is a false flag Israeli operation. Gellian’s interpretation of what has been posted here already hardly makes it appear that “democracies gotta stick together.” Rather, it makes it clear that it is Israel that is setting the limits on US Middle East policy and that US Jewish officials, be they in the state department or Congress, are their errand boys.

      The fact that Arab oligarchs tell US officials that they want to see Iran “taken out” may be what they actually believe or may, in fact, what they want to communicate to Washington to remain on its good side and particularly that of Congress where presumably the word would get out if they didn’t.

      Reading these cables requires some thinking about what they represent. That is more than some folks, ostensibly, on our side seem capable of doing.

      • Gellian
        November 29, 2010, 10:21 am

        “Reading these cables requires some thinking about what they represent. That is more than some folks, ostensibly, on our side seem capable of doing.”

        C’mon Jeff (if I may). I guess by some folks you mean me, since you’re replying to my comment.

        Like a lot of others around here, you’re equating a failure to reflexively demonize Israel with an inability to do “some thinking about what they represent”.

        This kind of foolishness is characteristic of the left. And I say that as a member of the left!

      • Jeffrey Blankfort
        November 29, 2010, 1:00 pm


        You’re a clever fellow. I can see that. I have been around long enough to detect when someone has an agenda they are trying to hide. And you’ve got one.

        Nobody is expected to “demonize Israel” as reflex but to understand how Israel-US relations actually work and understand that the “passionate attachment” to another state that a prescient Geo. Washington warned us against is not in the best interests of this country or the future of the planet. I want to do what I can to break that attachment. It doesn’t appear that is very important to you. Since I believe you are a relative newcomer to MW, I would be curious to find out what is?

      • Gellian
        November 30, 2010, 6:43 am


        Not sure if you’re still reading this but I do want to answer you.
        I’m not a relative newcomer; I’ve been reading the blog since Phil was fired at the newspaper. I don’t have an agenda either, but I do think that because I’ve been reading the blog so long it bugs and sort of freaks me out to see the kind of comments it’s been attracting.

        I originally got into it because Phil is intermarried. So am I. Phil used to write a lot about intermarriage and the challenges it poses. I thought that was great because at the time I thought there were a lot of challenges, too (and I mean purely at the social level; theologically speaking there ain’t a dime of difference between me, spouse, and in-laws). I really loved Phil’s insights. I still do when he shares them, though I guess he’s moved beyond a lot of the initial ones, just as I have.

        I also resented the no-Israel-to-be-mentioned-for-ill in public taboo. Phil and this heroic blog have been the primary reason for destroying the taboo. I think they deserve a huge amount of credit for that.

        Over time the blog has morphed into something different, though the name is the same. Its main purpose now seems to be to advocate for justice for Palestinians (very worthy goal), but usually in the event it’s turned into a hate-Israel fest. That’s not so much true of what Phil himself writes. It’s certainly true for what some of the guests write, and it’s bizarrely true for what a lot of commenters write.

        I get that a lot of us don’t like the special relationship. But, jeez, folks, Israel is a whole country. There are people living there. They aren’t just going to get up and leave. They also have national interests and anxieties. Wishing them away or (what is worse) starting to complain that their tentacles are everywhere and have got us by the you-know-what is definitely not going to make them want to see things our way.

        That’s why I can’t understand the fevered, unreflexive, unremitting attacks on the place in these comments. There’s no nuance. The difference between me and a lot of the people who have started to attack me around here is that (1) I’ve actually been to the country and spent time there, (2) am reasonably familiar with foreign politics in the U.S. and how it works, and (3) am friends with some Israelis and talk to them about all this stuff.

        As I say, I write from the left, but the left frequently frustrates me in the way pure emotion for a cause gets in the way of stepping back and trying to envision a workable, realistic solution to a problem. This idea that the Israelis should ‘just go home’ is as realistic as it was when Ron Paul suggested we do the same from Iraq and Afghanistan. It sounds awesome but it simply isn’t going to happen. I’m sure that’s frustrating to a lot of people. But it’s the reality.

        So how do we deal with it?

    • Kathleen
      November 28, 2010, 11:47 pm

      New York Times,Guardian all cherry picking what they release. Iran bad

    • kalithea
      November 29, 2010, 12:17 am

      Although, it’s an interesting angle, I believe that it’s a good that those treasonous, corrupt Arab monarchs were humiliated and exposed.

      You see now they appear to on Israel’s side, which is the last thing they want other Arab countries to think, since they like to believe they run the dog and pony show.

      Actually, on close inspection, Israel doesn’t look that good, asking the administration to waive clearance for Americans with dual citizenship for access to sensitive technology, and exposing that one of the 5 pillars of Israel’s Iran strategy is to incite a revolution in Iran after the elections by using terrorist, opposition groups and Kurds.

      Also, Dayan is referring to Fayyad as being “propped up”. I don’t think the Israelis want Palestinians knowing Fayyad is propped up by the U.S. and Israel.

      I don’t see how these leaks are so favorable to Israel.

      • irishmoses
        November 29, 2010, 2:42 pm

        Kalithea (or anyone else),
        Do you have the cite or link for the quote on Israel “asking the administration to waive clearance for Americans with dual citizenship for access to sensitive technology.”? I read it yesterday but can’t locate the document today.
        Gil Maguire

    • MRW
      November 29, 2010, 1:32 am


      If you don’t know, why cast it as a possible conspiracy theory? ;-) Fact is, you dont know. And you’re right about two observations: cui bono? and all of this shit is not only casting Israel in a beneficial light, but It’s making it appear to be the deciding superpower.

      None of this is passing my smell test. Israel went into hyperdrive when our December 2007 NIE wouldn’t justify bombing Iran. What our 16 intel agencies reported then is far different than what this picture being painted for us.

      The current NIE is 18 months late. Why?

    • Tuyzentfloot
      November 29, 2010, 3:50 am

      I have a theory about internet theories, it’s the ‘lackaboxis’ theory. Example, take 9-11 (the thing with those two towers, not the emergency phone number or the Pinochet coup) and set up two boxes “the official story” box and “they did it themselves” box. Then you start analyzing everything in order to decide which box you can fit it into. The main weakness here is not lack of analysis, it’s lack of hypothesis, too few boxes. Focusing on the possibility of feeding data to wikileaks causes one to overlook a much bigger factor.

      Wikileaks publishes an enormous amount of data, which puts it in a position similar to the CIA or NSA data gathering work: almost nobody reads the actual data, they all rely on others doing the interpretation for them. This means that if the NYTimes offers a preemptive interpretation of the documents then this will become the reality of the documents. What was the NYTimes’ main contribution the last time? Iran’s meddling in Iraq, which you could call stovepiping with preemptive interpretation. Gareth Porter gave a nice alternative interpretation of the same wikileaks document about Iran but everyone went with the NYTimes interpretation.

      If the Guardian does it, you get the same effect – on a more left leaning public. With good reason I would think, the Guardian offers a better window on the middle east. But don’t rely on the interpretation in their leading articles as a substitution for the actual documents.

      • Tuyzentfloot
        November 29, 2010, 4:05 am

        Here’s a simple question to ask when reading link to guardian.co.uk .

        How do the arab states know Iran is working on a bomb? I think part of the explanation is, it’s an echo chamber. People also don’t just repeat the stories they believe are true, they also repeat what suits them(since Iran is the enemy). But after a while everyone hears confirmation from everyone and it is no longer possible to keep reality separate from made up stories . It becomes very hard to keep track of the reality part.

    • Sumud
      November 29, 2010, 6:15 am

      I gotta say, from what I’ve seen so far Israel comes out smelling like a rose from all this.

      So despite the hype I don’t see Israel hurting one iota from any of this; on the contrary, they’re benefiting enormously.

      Less than 24 hours after the first release, of just 226 of 251,287 cables – that’s 0.09% of the total – this assessment seems a little premature.

      • Gellian
        November 29, 2010, 10:19 am

        Sumud, I respectfully disagree. If there were anything in those cables damaging to Israel, I guarantee it would be out by now.

        Unless we really think (here comes the consp. theory) that Spiegel, Guardian, NYT, Monde, La Pais are all controlled by powerful Zionist interests, so much so that they won’t print the damaging stuff. And so too are all their employees, none of whom would go to a blog to circumvent the bosses. And so on.

        If you think that’s a likely scenario, there’s not really much to discuss. (BTW I don’t mean to imply that you personally do. But it seems clear that others who replied above just might.)

    • kapok
      November 29, 2010, 11:56 am

      “The Arabs”? Which ones?

    • annie
      November 29, 2010, 3:42 pm

      There’s a theory kicking around the ‘net that Wikileaks basically is Israel; i.e. that Israel, or someone friendly to it, is feeding all this stuff to Assange and co.

      only because of people like you kicking it down the road. i read a lot, this sounds like ridiculous hasbara. if you are going to make these kinds of assertions link to it. i’d like to read the trolls saying this, besides you that is.

      • annie
        November 29, 2010, 3:52 pm

        i should amend that. it’s being fed alright. there are think tanks trying to figure out ways to get us to attack iran. one of the ways to do that is to make sure lies get spread around as much as possible. so what do you do? you feed your hasbara to the state department who then place it in a memo which gets disseminated to thousands of state departments people. then get the israel lobby to spread the same meme. make it appear as if everywhich way to turn your lies get fed.

        then if it gets leaked claim the leak confirms your reality!

      • Antidote
        November 29, 2010, 9:47 pm

        What is ‘hasbara’ about the suspicion that Israel, or friends of Israel, are behind spreading the meme (we have to bomb Iran) via the co-option of whistleblower Wikileaks?

  12. Jeffrey Blankfort
    November 28, 2010, 10:52 pm

    What should be noted is that at virtually every level, the US is represented in its relations with Israel by what the Israelis describe as a “warm Jew,” one who has a history of putting Israel’s interests first, another aspect of the Israel-US relationship that is unique and should be noted.

    One would have liked to have heard or read a transcript of the conversations that took place where it is more than likely that personal comments were made that were never intended to be made public. What is interesting here is the subservience to Israel that is openly demonstrated by Reps. Wexler and Ackerman, plus Dep. Sec. of State Shapiro.

    What is interesting is that everyone agreed that Hezbollah had done badly in the election when, in fact, its alliance with the Christian Maronites received 55% of the vote and were it not for the arcane Lebanese election laws which limits the power of the Shia, that alliance would have the most seats in the Lebanese parliament.

    • MRW
      November 29, 2010, 1:25 am

      Yeah, where is their concern that Obama was not going to play ball?

      • Danaa
        November 29, 2010, 4:25 pm

        MRW, that kind of information would be in higher level classification communiques. It is true that none of the cable we’ve seen so far cast include Israeli officials casting aspersions on the US’s commitment. It’s like it’s taken for granted. Much of the information relayed by Israeli generals, Dagan and other officials reads like an exercise in hasbara (not a particularly good one at that) which was no doubt meant to find it way into an “official” version of thing.

        Where is, for example, the assessment of Lieberman or the Israeli coalition partners? surely that’ been communicated a well. Chance are though that these would be marked more sensitive, possibly transmitted through more secure channels. Also, I note that so far, at least, the cable include mostly direct quotes and summaries of comments made by others. Not much independent opinion or analysis, which we know is offered by spades.

        It is possible of course that the mot sensitive information was redacted, but I somewhat doubt it.

        For now I am waiting to see what else comes out as time goes on, before rendering judgement.

  13. peters
    November 29, 2010, 12:20 am

    this guy gets it.

    link to veteranstoday.com

  14. MRW
    November 29, 2010, 1:24 am

    What is interesting here is the subservience to Israel that is openly demonstrated by Reps. Wexler and Ackerman, plus Dep. Sec. of State Shapiro.

    Still nothing new. I could have told you that while Wexler was still banging around Florida, and perking up Hardball with his oom-pah-pah.

    MJ Rosenberg has more scoops than this Wilileaks stuff.

    Frankly, Assange lost me when he publicly voiced extreme derision last summer about people who question the official 9/11 story, the one that architects and engineers (now over 1400), with lights-years’ more education and experience than Assange has, are saying deserves another look because it doesn’t make scientific sense. As far as I’m concerned, Assange threw down a red flag. Especially given the role he’s taken for himself. Judgment before enquiry? Before data? Please.

    • Kathleen
      November 29, 2010, 9:29 am

      “Still nothing new ” You are right “nothing new” But this dual loyalty issue is becoming more obvious to Americans, people are talking about it, discussing the issue and connecting the dots. Realizing how the unbridled U.S. support for Israel has undermined U.S. National Security for decades.

      This is not a dual loyalty issue. Ackermann, Feith, Wolforwitz, Ros Lehtinen are not dual loyalist. Israel comes first on their list. It is very clear

      • hophmi
        November 29, 2010, 3:52 pm

        And the Palestinians come first on yours. Two can play this stupid game. Why don’t we show some basic respect for one another and acknowledge that we support policy prescription because we believe they are the best ones, and cut this dual loyalty bullshit.

      • Potsherd2
        November 29, 2010, 4:58 pm

        Let’s cut the bull, hophmi, and call it treason.

      • Chu
        November 29, 2010, 5:23 pm

        sounds like someone’s getting upset! And unless these weak, corrupted, Israeli-peddling Zionist politicians stop putting another nation first, they’ll always be branded as dual-loyalists. This is the reality. It’s one step closer to traitor.

        And unless you start criticizing them, the dual-loyalty hobgoblin of days old will continue to be used.

      • MRW
        November 29, 2010, 5:42 pm


        I live in the United States and these guys are US government officials, and my tax dollars pay for the physical crushing of Palestine, and smoking babies like hams with white phosphorous, and these government officials are paid with my tax dollars as well. They are paid to object to values that we don’t subscribe to here.

        There is no bloody comparison. And I am under no compunction to acknowledge ‘policy prescriptions’ that involve a country other than my own. There is no parity.

      • Donald
        November 29, 2010, 6:09 pm

        ” cut this dual loyalty bullshit.”

        I’m happy to do so. I don’t care about the Lobby because of “dual loyalty”. If Israel really were this wonderful light unto the nations with the most moral military on earth, blah, blah, blah, well, I’d be happy to support them and would be pleased to see so many US politicians with hearts of gold lining up behind them.

        Unfortunately, Israel is a country with a rotten human rights record supported by a bunch of dishonest politicians in the US who do this because they’re afraid of the lobby. This pisses me off. “Dual loyalty”–well, that doesn’t mean so much, since I can’t see that very many politicians in either party really care about the rule of law they claim to support. The US commits plenty of war crimes on its own account. So far as I can tell, politicians have a single loyalty–it’s to their own self interest.

        I see that Danaa below is making what I take to be the same point.

      • Danaa
        November 29, 2010, 4:35 pm

        “This is not a dual loyalty issue. Ackermann, Feith, Wolforwitz, Ros Lehtinen are not dual loyalist. Israel comes first on their list.”

        That’s what I always say. Only one loyalty, really and it is not to the US. Well, modify that: two loyalties, one to Israel and one to their petty little themselves, making the listed individuals more limy than traitorous.

        For those who dispute the relevance of that, like hophmi, lets’ ask – what have the listed individuals along with the like of Levey and Shapiro and Wexler have actually done for America lately? can anyone say? can we hear one, jut one, positive action undertaken by feith for example/something that benefitted the US?

    • Jeffrey Blankfort
      November 29, 2010, 5:14 pm

      Granted that MJ Rosenberg and readers of MW are aware of the subservience to Israel by these elected and appointed officials but these cables, as ordinary as they appear to be, document the “tail wagging the dog” reality that also exists behind closed doors. The very “ordinariness” of the cables, or better put, “the banality of evil” is what should make it shocking (to those of us who are not inured to it). While I find Assange’s position on 9-11 troubling, perhaps, he, too, is a fan of Chomsky’s, and that he really hasn’t paid much attention to it.

      We also must remember that, despite our preoccupation (and much of Washington) with the I-P conflict, the US has dealings with many countries and the exposure of these cables seems to have put at least a temporary hurt on US diplomacy which is a good thing.

      I think one of the problems for many of us following this story is that we don’t know the politics of Assange or if he really has any that could be neatly packaged and described. It doesn’t seem so from the interviews I’ve heard. He just seems to believe in getting secret information out and for me that is good enough. It’s up to us to use it properly.

      • MRW
        November 29, 2010, 6:37 pm

        The very “ordinariness” of the cables, or better put, “the banality of evil” is what should make it shocking (to those of us who are not inured to it).

        I’m probably inured. Put another way, maybe I’ve done too much reading on the net over the last 15 years of wire service reports that have disappeared within an hour of their appearing, of strange arcane policy wonk stuff from Europe where foreign service gossip was served up every once in a while for entertainment — stuff like how much Meir Dugan thoroughly despises Americans, it’s visceral with him ;-) he loves Russians — of the equivalent of rooms full of articles and books. [I’m actually getting tired of it, which is a wonder.]

        I hung out in Morocco one summer when I was much younger, and because my hostess was a grande dame on the scene (and a stinking rich Brit) I was invited to tag along at the State Department/Foreign Service cocktail parties that happened five nights a week on the US Govt dime. Free booze and cigarettes, that’s all I cared about. Afterward, she would decipher it for me over tajine, tea and more booze (never fully appreciating that I was actually paying attention) at a restaurant where she had a permanent reserved table. Knew all the characters. Who was CIA, who was KGB, who was Mossad, MI6. Who was an idiot. What it meant when one person talked to so-and-so, then left to converse with another. It was like codework breaking down those overheard boozy conversations that were otherwise meaningless. She knew all the scandals, and was a geopolitical whiz. Maybe she was a spy, I don’t know. She was in her late 60s, early 70s and sharp as a bell on a cold morning. She was also a regular visitor with the King in Rabat. But she gave me a flavor for what you call the banality, the absolute ordinariness of extraordinary things going on, especially under the cover of social niceties with lots of clink and drink. It made me develop my ear for small inconsequential signs and things, minutiae made momentous.

        I don’t know what bothers me about the Wikileaks stuff, but something does. I should probably keep my mouth shut until I do. I can’t put my finger on it.

        I will tell you this. There will be enormous value if the extent of Israel dictating our foreign policy, or just the volume of involvement, becomes more apparent to the average soccer mom and football dad. Especially all the talk about war with Iran. People I talk to think that’s off the table, that it’s just a bunch of countries posturing. The threat of it being real, and what it will do to gas and food prices in this economy, a third war no one can afford, is almost tantamount to having your kid subjected to the draft. It brings it to your front door. The thing I want to see is: does it bring it to a public debate, does it crack MSNBC for eg. Does it bring it to the churches, which I wouldn’t know because I don’t attend one, but I swing by the religious sites every once in a while to check. Will there be no choice but to discuss this on TV because people are wondering why the DC-based MSM hasn’t been covering what’s in these cables if this shit is so important to get worked up over.

        And the other thing I like is that it might put a brake on these putzes. They’re being exposed, cattiness, lies, and all. Two to three million people all gossiping on their own private Internet, and now the stain of having to be accountable has marked up their clothes.

      • Antidote
        November 29, 2010, 7:25 pm

        love your post, as always

  15. MRW
    November 29, 2010, 2:13 am

    Interesting paragraph from a Cryptome article;

    Assange and the security wizards advising Wikileaks are unusually gifted at long-range deception and protection, some sell those arcane and lucrative services to spies, governments, banks, businesses, billionaires and other criminal cartels — and give freely to those targetted by highly-profitable and nutty secrecy peddlers. A few provide operational security for the Internet and digital communications and know their weaknesses and strengths, hideaways and byways for genuine and phony actionable intelligence, financial lawful and outlaw rings and where their dirty money is hidden. Yes, among them are ex-NSA officials and their exceptionally adept contract researchers as unbound by NDAs and secrecy agreements as Bradley Manning and others deeper inside not yet unveiled. What they know is what James Bamford in “The Puzzle Palace” (paper, p. 461) explores of the NSA dilemma of what to do with data gathered on corrupt officials in the US and elsewhere other than bury it as unminizable foreign intelligence despite pleas from law enforcement agencies.

    An NSA article,”Toward a Taxonomy of Secrets,” outlines the grand scope of the ever-expanding cult of self-serving secrecy with guardedly useful apologia for the practice:

    link to cryptome.org

    The article is unclassified thus advertizes not telling the whole truth, please pay for that to “keep us strong.” Insurance codephrases for the practice of deception in the spirit of asymmetrical open source, you give freely we profit.
    from : link to cryptome.org

  16. MRW
    November 29, 2010, 5:39 am

    If Wikileaks serves to wake the American people up to extent the US is in bed with Israel, then maybe it will prove itself useful. Maybe we might get a public debate, although I’m not holding my breath.

    Full Disclosure: I have not read all 250,000 pages (minimum) and have no intention of doing so. At 5,000 sheets per box, that’s, what, 50 boxes.

    I do, however, object strenuously and vociferously to the idea that Assange should be prosecuted. Who intends to do this prosecuting? Elected officials who are no more important than the people who put them in office, and into whose ranks they return once they are out of office? And who are they to say what I can and cannot see or hear. I like the idea that the threat of eventual exposure cramps their style.

    The Wikileaks dump, as far as I can tell, contains no top secret or highly-classified communiques. Where’s all the backy and forthy when Petraeus was calling Israel a threat to American troops nine months ago? He didn’t come up with that without a lot of backup, and as reported at the time (Foreign Policy article) extensive research. Anyone found that yet?

    • MRW
      November 29, 2010, 5:47 am

      I answered my own question. I put David Petraeus’ name in the Wikileaks database that the Guardian is offering and got five reports urging the bombing of Iran. (By the Saudis, Arab States, Bahrain, Kuwait, and Saudi King.)

      • peters
        November 29, 2010, 12:09 pm

        mrw, this says it all. that is hugely incriminating i think… needs to get out there.

  17. occupyresist
    November 29, 2010, 7:32 am

    Thank you Gulf States! You never miss an opportunity to let me down!

    Leaks: Gulf states urge Iran action

    The vast trove of diplomatic cables leaked by the WikiLeaks website shows that US allies in the Middle East are pushing for tough action against the Iranian nuclear threat.

    According to one leaked US cable leaked on Sunday, Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah bin Abd al-Aziz urged US General David Petraeus and Ryan Crocker, US ambassador to Iraq, in 2008 to take military action against Tehran’s nuclear programme and urged them to “cut off the head of the snake”.

    “May God prevent us from falling victim to their evil,” said Abdullah. “We have had correct relations over the years, but the bottom line is that they cannot be trusted.”

    Reacting to the leaks, an unidentified Saudi government adviser told AFP that, “The whole thing is very negative. It’s not good for confidence-building”.

    Other leaked documents revealed a common thread, showing that Arab countries seem prone to criticise Iran when meeting with US officials.

    For example, cables from the US embassy in the United Arab Emirates revealed that Abu Dhabi crown prince Mohammed bin Zayed was convinced in 2006 that a nuclear-armed “Iran would destabilise the Gulf region and possibly allow terrorist access to [weapons of mass destruction”.

    And a cable from Bahrain said that King Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa blames Iran for “the trouble in both Iraq and Afghanistan” and that he “argued forcefully for taking action to terminate [Iran’s] nuclear programme, by whatever means necessary.”

    Echoing Israel

    A leaked memo from November 2009 on a meeting between senior Israeli and US military officials, quotes Israeli defence ministry director Amos Gilad describing Tehran’s alleged plans as “intolerable”.

    During the meeting, an agent of Israel’s Mossad foreign intelligence service said Iran was playing for time to “avoid sanctions while pursuing its strategic objective to obtain a military nuclear capability.

    “From Mossad’s perspective, there is no reason to believe Iran will do anything but use negotiations to stall for time so that by 2010-2011, Iran will have the technological capability to build a nuclear weapon,” he said.

    And in June 2009, Israeli Defence Minister Ehud Barak warned US lawmakers the West had only until the end of 2010 to find a way to halt the Iranian nuclear programme or face a Middle East arms race.

    Adding to the concern, the leaks also show US intelligence believes Iran has obtained advanced missiles from North Korea capable of striking Europe as far as Berlin, according to documents cited by the New York Times.

    “I understand their frustration,” David Mack, former US ambassador to the UAE, told Al Jazeera.

    “Leaders of these countries have been asking us to do something effective about Iran, and that includes the position of our own government – we don’t take anything off the table,” said Mack, referring to the military option.

    Mack pointed to a “degree of containment” he said the US has achieved with Iran via sanctions, and worried that the leaked cables would help Iran “wiggle out of this net of containment that has been built around them.”

    Tehran shrugs

    So far, the Iranian press has not paid much attention to the WikiLeaks cables, with most of the focus being on the attacks on two nuclear physicists in Tehran, and Saad al-Hariri’s visit to the country.

    The state-run Press TV did, however, run a piece entitled, “Saudi king playing into US hands?” on its site.

    But an official response the revelations in the cables is yet to come.

    Mohamad Morandi, associate professor of American studies at Tehran University in Iran, told Al Jazeera that the revelations were unsurprising and speculative. He also said that an official Iranian response to the cables was unlikely.

    “I don’t think the Iranian leadership nor the Iranian people would find this unexpected – I don’t think it’s a surprise,” said Morandi, of the revelations that attacks on Iran were called for by several neighbouring Gulf states.

    “The Iranians want to keep the region stable and quiet, and ironically, it is Americans and now, as we know, the Saudis and some of these regimes in the region, along with Israelis, calling for attacks or making threats against Iran, whereas Iran has never made any threat against any country, despite the rhetoric we see in the Western media and among Western leaders,” said Morandi.

    Morandi also said that Iranians believe the cables will diminish the credibility of leaders in Gulf states among their own people.

    link to english.aljazeera.net

    • Kathleen
      November 29, 2010, 9:05 am

      Of course Saudi dictators want to distract from their own tyrannical regimes and put the spotlight on Iran. Both Ron Susskind in his book “The Price of Loyalty” and Richard Clarke ‘s book “Against All Enemies”
      address the cozy relationship between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia. And the financial support that Saudi mucky mucks allegedly provided for the 9/11 terrorist.

      There is no hard, verifiable evidence that Iran is doing what Israel and the I lobby keep claiming. No hard evidence.

    • Sumud
      November 29, 2010, 9:51 am

      occupyresist ~ have a read of a few recent cables from the US embassy in Qatar which I linked to here:

      link to mondoweiss.net

      Among GCC countries my opinion of Qatar has gone up not down as a result of what I’ve read so far in these cables – while the Al Thanis have a low opinion of Iran they come across as realistic, honest, and peacemakers. Needless to say Israel and Egypt despises them..

      • occupyresist
        December 1, 2010, 5:05 am


        Qatar is light-years ahead of all the other states in the region. Just think Al Jazeera and the Doha Debates.

      • Sumud
        December 1, 2010, 5:34 am

        Just think Al Jazeera and the Doha Debates.

        I do :-)

        Actually I just finished listening to the entire series of 50 Doha Debates (available to watch/download online), very informative, a great

        Online archive (audio/video):
        link to thedohadebates.com

        itunes podcast page (audio)
        link to itunes.apple.com

        It’s a groundbreaking project. During the period I was living in the ME (07/08) I didn’t know about the Doha Debates; I wish I had, I would’ve tried to get tickets. Anyway..

        Did you know Mr Weiss was on the panel last season?

        (April 26:)
        link to dohadebates.com

      • occupyresist
        December 1, 2010, 6:53 am


        Watched the whole thing. Richard Cohen was left to pick his own nose.

    • Jeffrey Blankfort
      November 29, 2010, 5:25 pm

      These leaks will certainly be embarrassing to the Gulf monarchs but it may not honestly reflect their positions. Constantly under the political gunsights of the pro-Israel lobby and its neocon faction, in particular, if these oil rich sheikdoms took a position opposing US (Israel) policy towards Iran it would for certain get back to Congress and to The Lobby with the predictable speeches on the floor of Congress with resolutions to follow. These monarchs are certainly aware of what serious risks they could expect should the US or Israel attack Iran as they are also well aware that whatever decision is made in Israel or Washington re an attack on Iran, they will not be a part of it. In other words, these oligarchs may have just been telling the US diplomats what the latter wanted to hear. Think about it.

      • MHughes976
        November 29, 2010, 5:55 pm

        All the same, I think that it is this black-and-white indication (Jeffrey demonstrates that we should not say ‘proof’) of anti-Iranian sentiment, even bellicosity, within a powerful section of the Islamic world that will be remembered as the ‘something new’ about these documents.
        In a sense there’s still nothing new – we’ve always known that some Gulf conservatives were sharpening daggers against Iran, so we’re not dealing with a ‘revelation’ or even a shock, but it still may be significant that we now have a few daggers with fingerprints on the handles. Some people will be trying to make sure that it’s very significant, and will cry loudly that Israel is not alone but is acting as a responsible representative of moderate opinion throughout the ME.
        I’m not much good myself at cloak-and-dagger puzzles but we hear that there’s a ‘Wikileaks is Israel’ school of thought. Would you think that this school has now become more plausible?

      • Jeffrey Blankfort
        November 29, 2010, 10:45 pm

        The same people who are suggesting that Wikileaks is a Mossad and or CIA operation have been doing so from the beginning without any facts to go on, but such accusations are the kind of “disinformation” that both agencies would want to have “out there” on the net to diminish the impact of whatever Wikileaks might reveal. This was particularly important when it released that damning video showing US airmen killing journalists in cold blood.

        The question that needs to be asked is what benefit would either the US or Israel get from operating Wikileaks. At the moment, US diplomacy is on the rocks and if all Israel got was some comments from Arab monarchs supporting a war on Iran, that makes it hardly worth the extreme risks if it was found to be responsible and in the cyber world that would be a likely outcome.

        Better to spend time going over the leaks than questioning why you have been given the opportunity to do so.

      • annie
        November 29, 2010, 10:55 pm


  18. seafoid
    November 29, 2010, 9:31 am

    I want to see the wikileak of the lobby’s work in 2001-2003 to get the war in Iraq they wanted , the one that would silence the Palestinians forever and secure Israeli hegemony into eternity.

Leave a Reply