A new, neoconservative online outlet called the Washington Free Beacon is continuing the campaign against the Center for American Progress (CAP) in two articles that go after the organization for “downplaying” intelligence on Iran’s nuclear program. But the author, Adam Kredo, misleads readers by distorting the existing evidence on Iran. The articles represent a continuation of a campaign to discredit those who are cautious about a war on Iran, a core reason why neoconservatives are attacking CAP.

Kredo’s main contention is that CAP, along with the Huffington Post and Media Matters, has “downplayed new intelligence indicating Iran’s nuclear program is more dangerous than previously thought.” Kredo writes that liberal groups have taken to questioning the reporting of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the organization tasked with monitoring nuclear energy and weapons. But it’s Kredo’s characterization of the most recent IAEA report that is wrong.

But first, Kredo is also wrong when he writes that liberal groups like CAP have questioned “the IAEA’s recent findings on Iran.” As evidence for that assertion, he links to a CAP report that approvingly cites the IAEA report “detailing Iran’s past and current nuclear weapons-related research.” So in fact, CAP does not question the veracity of the IAEA report--and neither do the other articles Kredo links to.

More important though is Kredo’s distortion of the IAEA report--which, it should be noted, has been credibly criticized by some analysts. The distortion serves up an agenda that portrays an Iranian nuclear weapons program as an “existential threat” to Israel that should be wiped out by the U.S. and/or Israel--actions that would lead to a disastrous war.

"This is the exact same pattern that we saw in Iraq, and the effort by folks to hype the threat and take things out of context and confuse the American public into thinking things that are not true," said Jamal Abdi, the policy director for the National Iranian American Council (NIAC). "Right now, a lot of Americans have been fooled into thinking that Iran has a nuclear weapon, or even that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapon."

In Kredo's first article (which has a hyperlink with the title, "war on truth,") Kredo writes:

The IAEA’s most recent report reveals that Iran has been pursuing nuclear weapons since the mid-1980s with public activities peaking around 2002 before apparently moving underground.

And in his second article, which smears CAP as "prejudiced" and "anti-Semitic," he similarly states:

Liberal writers routinely question the veracity of the International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA) November report on Iran. The report builds the case that the regime is aggressively pursuing nuclear weapons.

The IAEA report does sound the alarm on certain aspects of Iran’s nuclear work that the report says may indicate nuclear weapons work. But no where in the report can you find a definitive statement that “Iran has been pursuing nuclear weapons since the mid-1980s” or that Iran is “aggressively pursuing nuclear weapons,” which is how Kredo characterizes it.

"What [U.S.] intelligence reports found and continue to find is the same thing the IAEA report found, which is that Iran had a concerted nuclear weapons program up until 2003, and shut that program down," Abdi explained in a phone interview. "And while there still remains some activities that appear to be geared towards no other purpose than potential weapons work, it’s the finding of both the intelligence community and the IAEA that Iran has not made a decision to actually pursue a nuclear weapon. If anything, what they’re moving towards is the capability if they decide to get a nuclear weapon. And that’s much different than what this reporter is asserting."

Kredo's misleading characterizations, which frequently shows up in mainstream media, have been roundly criticized by the media watchdog group Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR). In November 2011, a FAIR “action alert” noted:

The first part of the agency's November 8 report declares--once again--that Iran is not transferring uranium for use in a military project.

The more explosive allegations that media are focusing on are contained in an annex that attempts to lay out evidence that has been circulating for years. The IAEA report stresses concern over allegations over past activities; very little of the report is dedicated to research that could be describing as ongoing. Indeed, the media is focusing primarily on the IAEA's speculation about what might be ongoing research that could be related to a military program.

The Christian Science Monitor also had a good report outlining why the IAEA report wasn’t the “game changer” it was made out to be:

In a 14-page annex to its quarterly report on Iran released yesterday, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said new intelligence and other data gave it "serious concern" about the allegedly peaceful nature of Iran's nuclear program. But the casus belli for military strikes that anti-Iran hawks in the US and Israel expected to gain from the IAEA report is far from clear-cut...

Prior to the report's release, speculation mounted in Israel and Washington that new revelations might prompt military strikes to prevent Iran from acquiring a weapon.

Instead, experts say, much of the information is years old, inconclusive – and perhaps not entirely real.

Most of the weapons-related work it details was shut down nearly a decade ago – in 2003 – the IAEA says, and less formal efforts that "may" continue do not bolster arguments that Iran is a nation racing to have the bomb.
Iran "doesn't seem to have the same North Korea-like obsession with developing nuclear weapons. That's nowhere to be found in the [IAEA] evidence," says Shannon Kile, head of the Nuclear Weapons Project at the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI).
"Yes, Iran is making progress, they've covered the waterfront in terms of the main technical areas that you need to develop a nuclear weapon," says Mr. Kile. "But there is no evidence they have a dedicated program under way. It's not like they are driving toward nuclear weapons; it's like they're meandering toward capability."

And after readers, urged on by FAIR, complained to the New York Times’ ombudsman about articles claiming that the IAEA report states that Iran's nuclear program has a military objective, the ombudsman agreed with FAIR. Arthur Brisbane wrote correctly that the “agency has stopped short” of emphatically saying that Iran is building nuclear weapons. Similarly, the Washington Post's ombudsman criticized his paper's reporting for "getting ahead of the facts on Iran" after a headline in the Post read, "Iran’s quest to possess nuclear weapons." The Times and the Post are no bastions of anti-war on Iran sentiment, so it’s significant that their ombudsmen would chastise their papers for reporting what Kredo is also writing.

To bolster the case that Iran is definitively pursuing nuclear weapons, Kredo quotes Director of National Intelligence James Clapper as saying that Iran is “certainly moving on [the] path” towards weaponization. It’s true that Clapper said that; but the next sentence in his testimony was this: “We do not believe they have actually made the decision to go ahead with a nuclear weapon.” This is similar to what Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said on CBS last month: “Are they trying to develop a nuclear weapon? No. But we know that they’re trying to develop a nuclear capability and that’s what concerns us.”

Kredo’s zeal to discredit CAP and other analysts who are speaking out against a war with Iran is clearly one more step in the attempt to marginalize critics of current U.S./Israeli policy on Iran. Predictably, the clamoring for an Iran war is appearing in an outlet whose chairman is the neoconservative writer Michael Goldfarb, who advises the Emergency Committee for Israel. Goldfarb has also advised Sarah Palin on foreign policy.

"The hyping of this type is going to become a self-fulfilling prophecy," NIAC's Abdi said. "We’re going to see a repeat of Iraq. But a war with Iran is going to make the wars of the past ten years look like a cakewalk."

In one of the most amusingly delusional wishful thinking hasbara articles I have ever read Jonathan Tobin tries and fails to convince us nobody is really worried or even thinking about Palestinians anymore, and they are irrelevant. I kid you not. This is a must read in terms of setting a new tone of fanatical discourse. It's almost unbelievable, but then again, it is what we've come to expect from Commentary Magazine.

In the very same paragraph Tobin references the Hamas Fatah unity deal as "what can only be termed a momentous turn of events" the confirmation Palestinians are  'irrelevant' is supposedly due to the "lack of alarm or even much worry about the impact of Hamas on the peace process".

Someone should clue in Tobin the 'lack of alarm' doesn't signal the irrelevance of Palestinians, it rather confirms the general public is not freaking out by the prospect of dealing with Hamas and would rather see the show on the road. All that pro team fear mongering just isn't working. What it signifies (and everyone already knows) is there simply is no 'peace process' where Israel is concerned and hasn't been for long long time, if ever. It's been a delay hoax for long enough and nobody is chomping anymore, least of all Palestinians. Literally nobody, no one I can think of anyway.

Tobin claims "the world is gradually moving on". Uh huh/not. In fact there were, according to Google, over a 1507 related articles covering the recent signing, including Fox News, the Financial Times, the SF Chronicle and everyone in between. That doesn't sound like moving on to me, it sounds like 'in the news'. The most recent (7 minutes ago as I'm typing this) is from the editorial staff at Haaretz, Netanyahu is punishing Israel :

Netanyahu's ultimatum looks like a pretext for torpedoing talks on a final-status agreement based on the Quartet's outline and U.S. President Barack Obama's speech last May. But these negotiations were on the rocks even before Abbas signed the agreement with the head of Hamas' political bureau, Khaled Meshal, due to Israel's refusal to freeze construction in the settlements and present substantive positions on a permanent border.

The ongoing crisis in the diplomatic process is playing a key role in tilting the political balance in the territories toward the opponents of a compromise. These opponents already laud the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza as a victory for "the resistance," and burying the diplomatic process would open a path for them to take over leadership of both the PA and the PLO in the upcoming competition for the Palestinian electorate's backing.

Netanyahu must end his obsessive search for flaws in the internal Palestinian agreement and focus instead on an initiative for ending the conflict. For he has the ability to do so.

No one in the reality based community is pretending this is over or that Palestinians are 'irrelevant'. Things are just heating up. Palestinians did the polite thing. Once again they bent over backwards, delayed their UN bid and carried out the wishes of the Quartet (wishes Israel flipped the bird at and twisted around with all the best hasbara their think tanks could come up with). We're moving on from Commentary's overwraught bloviations ("Peace will have to wait until a sea change in Palestinian political culture that will make it possible for the PA to sign a deal that recognizes the legitimacy of a Jewish state no matter where its borders are drawn."). People are accepting Hamas is here to stay and serious people should prepare to play ball. Maybe you should grow up and start reading the news. Here's Bloomberg : Making a Fatah and Hamas Partnership Work for U.S., Israel:

The news that the mainstream Palestinian group Fatah has agreed to form a unity government with the militantly Islamist Hamas may move some to dismay. Although there are ample reasons for that reaction, this development may also present an opportunity.

There is evidence, however, that the movement is re- evaluating its friends and options and that at least some of the leaders in this fractious organization are experimenting with a more pragmatic tone. Hamas’s agreement to share power with secular rival Fatah is itself something of a concession.

All of this leaves policy makers in the U.S. and Israel with two broad options: They can seize on these developments as a moment of weakness for Hamas and seek to reinforce its isolation, thereby preserving the status quo; or they can work with governments that have open communications with Hamas, such as Turkey, Qatar and Jordan, as well as the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, to encourage Hamas onto a more moderate path. At this particular moment, the latter seems a policy worth exploring.

Isolation has succeeded in keeping Hamas militarily weak, but on other counts the policy has failed. Notably, it ensured that Hamas remained in the willing arms of Iran, and an economic blockade failed to stir revolt inside Gaza. Hamas is unlikely to fold up and disappear any time soon.

Who's irrelevant? Commentary Magazine, that's who.

In recent weeks, the Israel lobby has drawn a red line on the use of the phrase "Israel Firster." Supporters of Israel have lectured us that it is an "anti-Semitic trope." Here, for instance, is Spencer Ackerman denouncing the use of the term at Tablet:

“Israel Firster” has a nasty anti-Semitic pedigree, one that many Jews will intuitively understand without knowing its specific history. It turns out white supremacist Willis Carto was reportedly the first to use it, and David Duke popularized it through his propaganda network. And yet [M.J.] Rosenberg and others actually claim they’re using it to stimulate “debate,” rather than effectively mirroring the tactics of some of the people they criticize.

As if the very words have anti-Semitism in their DNA.

Well Ackerman is wrong. The term Israel Firster was used by a Zionist before it was used by white supremacists. I just got a hold of the American Jewish Committee's Yearbook for 1961. It cites the use of the term "Israel Firster" by a legendary Zionist, the late Abram Leon Sachar, the leading American historian of Jews and president of Brandeis when he said it.

Read the screenshot below:

I'll write it out:

American Jews and Israel

American Jews continued to raise large sums of money for Israel, and to defend it. Israelis, for their part, continued to seek greater commitments from American Jews and more emigrants. The conflict between Prime Minister Ben-Gurion and Nahum Goldman, president of the WZO (World Zionist Organization], did not abate. On june 2, 1960, at a meeting of Mapai's central committee, Ben-Gurion declared that neither Israel nor the Jews outside Israel needed the Zionist movement as an intermediary between them. He said that Goldmann was "neither an Israeli nor an American," but "a wandering Jew."

American Jews continued to object to Israel's claim that a genuine Jewish life was possible only in Israel. Abram L. Sachar, president of Brandeis University, at the biennial convention of JWB [Jewish Welfare Board], declared on April 2, 1960 that among Jews there is no room "for Israel Firsters whose chauvinism and arrogance  find nothing relevant or viable in any area outside of Israel."

Sachar was speaking to the JWB, or Jewish Welfare Board, which bought Torahs for Jewish boys in uniform. American uniform. And he made his comments in the context of American Jews being loyal citizens of the U.S. Ben-Gurion, the first prime minister of Israel, had long urged American Jews to move to Israel. The American Jewish community was resisting the pressure to make "greater commitments" to Israel.

Sachar was a goldplated Zionist, national director of the B'nai B'rith Hillel Foundations who wrote that the "rebirth of [the Jews'] independent homeland" was "an event pregnant with incalculable opportunities for creativity and enrichment."

But Sachar needed to draw a red line of his own. He didn't like Israel Firsters. Here he is in the New York Times, 1960:

Dr. Abram L. Sachar, president of Brandeis University, rejected tonight the "dogma that only in Israel is a genuine, normal, substantive Jewish life possible."

I can't get the rest of that clip because my computer's wonky, but you get the point.

Now let's review the context in which "Israel Firster" has arisen in 2011-2012: a situation in which supporters of Israel are pushing the U.S. to go to war against Iran in some measure out of concern for Israel's security. One of these supporters is Sheldon Adelson, who personally revived Newt Gingrich's campaign with $10 million after Gingrich called Palestinians an "invented people" and who is now said to be dickering with Romney's campaign about the terms on which he will give money to the Republican frontrunner.

That dickering will turn on Romney's promises re Israel, you can be sure of it. Because, as Adelson has said, he "unfortunately" wore the uniform of the American military not the Israeli army, and he wants his son to be a sniper for the Israeli army because "All we care about is being good citizens of Israel."

If you can criticize Adelson's giving without venturing the thought that he puts Israel first-- well, do me a favor and don't turn my mind into spaghetti.

The Center for American Progress has folded under pro-Israel pressure. It has recanted its use of the term Israel Firster. The fabulous young journalist, Zaid Jilani, who used the expression in tweets, has moved on to another job. Look over the battlefield today and only Andrew Sullivan, MJ Rosenberg, and Glenn Greenwald have stood up for the acceptability of the term. Courageous writers all. And they can say that the words have a good Jewish pedigree...

P.S. I wonder what's next for the Zionist Censors? How about "Matzorian candidate?" Jon Stewart said that about the Republicans expressing endless support for Israel, with hints of dual loyalty. Sure sounds like a "trope" to me!

Yet Judt's arguments, and his great rogue state that uses the Holocaust as a get out of jail free card line, are quoted.

[Judt] argues that Israelis and their American supporters have used the Holocaust as a “Get Out of Jail Free card for a rogue state,” but seems to think that his own Jewishness and the fact that he lived in Israel at one point give him the authority to be as morally obtuse in return. Judt seems intent on transferring the lessons learned in Eastern Europe, where genuine liberalism mostly replaced ethnic nationalism, to a part of the world where such liberalism just won’t work. His proposal for a binational state was put forward with the self-certainty of an intellectual who has never had to deal with the realities of practicality and power...

[My students] are fortunate not to live in a world where ideas could be translated into monstrous projects for the transformation of society, and where being an intellectual could often mean complicity in enormous crimes.

I wonder what Fukuyama really thinks--did he perhaps want to go further and praise Judt a bit more, and the Times wouldn't let him? It kind of gives me that impression, but one never knows.

There's a context. Fukuyama is a subtle and accomplished thinker, a former neoconservative who broke over the Iraq war. Eight years ago, he had a semi-famous feud with Charles Krauthammer, who implied without saying so directly that Fukuyama was an anti-semite for noticing that the neocons may have internalized Israeli hostility to Arabs, and that it distorted their world view. An outsider could see that Fukuyama clearly won the ensuing exchanges, but it's a bruising thing for a gentile trying to maintain establishment credentials to go through-- and not everyone has the thick skin or temperament for it.

Can one sense in Fukuyama's criticism of Tony Judt's anti-Zionism a whiff of Stockholm syndrome, of bruises that still need shielding. Or does he really think (as Israel and its Washington allies try to steer America into yet another Mideast war) that the "realities of practicality and power" require shutting our minds to the questions Judt was raising?

Mayor Michael Bloomberg had a message to New York City's Muslim community: don't worry that the New York Police Department showed an anti-Muslim film to around 1,500 officers, because top cop Ray Kelly “probably visits more mosques” than many Muslims in New York.

Speaking at a press conference in Queens, Bloomberg continued his defense of Kelly: “He has reached out to this community as he has reached out to lots of other communities. We have things regularly at 1 Police Plaza for clergy people of each religion, including Islam. And we'll continue to do that.”

But Muslim community leaders and activists, backed by a diverse coalition of allies, are having none of that. They want Kelly fired. And they say this latest incident shows how anti-Muslim sentiment has become institutionalized in the NYPD.

A rejoinder to Kelly's defense was already on display at around the same time Bloomberg spoke, at a January 26 press conference on the steps of City Hall. Protesters held signs labeling Kelly a racist. Anger was in the air, and Muslim activists and allies repeatedly called for Kelly's resignation; for “corrective training” for the officers who viewed the film; and for independent oversight of the NYPD. As chants of “Kelly must go” rang through the air, some activists demanded state or federal oversight of New York City police.

“This outrage is a violation of the honor of our city and those who protect it,” said Cyrus McGoldrick, the civil rights manager for the Council on American-Islamic Relations' New York chapter.

The battle is centered around an Islamophobic film titled The Third Jihad, which was shown to police officers on a continuous loop during “the sign-in, medical and administrative orientation process,” according to police documents obtained by the Brennan Center for Justice. The film, which is filled with violent imagery and posits that mainstream Muslim groups are in fact secretly plotting to take over the U.S., was financed by the Clarion Fund, a right-wing organization with links to Israeli settlers. Compounding the NYPD and Bloomberg administration's problems is the fact that Kelly willingly agreed to sit down for a 90-minute interview for the film and that NYPD spokesman Paul Browne lied about Kelly's involvement and how many officers saw the film.

This is hardly the first time NYPD's problematic relationship with the city's Muslims has come to light. But what makes the episode significant is the media firestorm it has created over the spokesperson's lies at a time of increasing awareness of police abuse due to Occupy Wall Street-related arrests and brutality. Muslim activists are looking to capitalize on that energy as they confront the NYPD in the weeks ahead.

Since the September 11, 2001 attacks, the NYPD has had a fraught relationship with the city's 800,000-member Muslim community, one of the fastest growing religious communities in the city. Billions of dollars have been spent to make NYPD one of the most powerful forces in the fight against terrorism. But the NYPD has been routinely accused of harassing and entrapping Muslims in terrorism-related cases. The final straw for many Muslims came when an Associated Press investigative series published last summer exposed an arbitrary spying program, implemented with CIA help, that targeted virtually all of New York's Muslims. A “demographics unit” established at the NYPD has “monitored daily life in bookstores, bars, cafes and nightclubs” in Muslim communities, as well as mosques, the AP reported. It was also revealed that the NYPD spied on Muslim student associations on college campuses.

Revelations of the spying program dealt blows to a Bloomberg administration whose relations with the Muslim community were at a relative high note when the mayor defended the Park 51 mosque project near Ground Zero in lower Manhattan.

“These practices paint a dangerous picture of the ways in which law enforcement engages with Muslim communities under the banner of national security,” reads an August 25, 2011 statement from the Muslim American Civil Liberties Coalition. “These McCarthyite spying techniques threaten the civil rights of all Americans, and deepen the long-existing rifts between communities of color and police in the United States.”

Then came the most recent revelation about the showing of The Third Jihad. Although the Village Voice first reported on the story last January, a Jan. 23, 2012 New York Times report, based on police documents obtained by the Brennan Center, has received a lot more attention due to the AP expose on the NYPD's spying program.

“Seeing that propaganda like this is being used in training is almost logical in light of Associated Press reports on the NYPD's comprehensive and warrantless surveillance of Muslim New Yorkers,” said CAIR-NY's McGoldrick.

After the most recent revelations broke, Browne's lies about the NYPD film screening became a hot media topic. The AP ran a January 30, 2012 article titled “New York Police Spokesman Comes Under Fire.” The two free daily papers in New York led with the story after it broke, and some city council members have called for more oversight of the NYPD as a result of the incident. Protests calling for Kelly's resignation have kept the story in the news, and an editorial, an opinion piece and a column in the New York Times were published in recent days criticizing the NYPD.

A burgeoning alliance between black and Latino activists working against “stop-and-frisk” police tactics, Muslim activists and Occupy Wall Street could keep the momentum going. Jumaane Williams, a black city council member and OWS supporter whose own run-in with NYPD has turned him into an outspoken advocate against police abuse, spoke at the rally and denounced the NYPD's “corrosive culture.”

The coming together of long-time anti-police brutality activists and OWS was chronicled in The Awl in a report by Michael Tracey. Titled “A Fresh Movement Against the NYPD's Culture of Misconduct,” the article detailed how OWS has reinvigorated New York's anti-police brutality movement. As Tracey shows, the alliance is natural given OWS' experience with police brutality—something communities of color have had to combat for decades. And OWS' attention to police brutality has also been a boon to Muslim activists.

On October 21, 2011, a CAIR-NY-organized day of prayer was held in Zuccotti Park. Although it attracted little attention outside the anti-Muslim blogosphere, it was a sign of an alliance to come.

“CAIR-NY’s endorsement of Friday Prayer at Occupy Wall Street stems from a conviction that many of the issues brought into the international spotlight by Occupy Wall Street affect Muslim communities disproportionately,” read a statement announcing the action. “Especially in light of the recently exposed NYPD surveillance in Muslim Student Organizations, we need to unite in our repudiation of government corruption and our rejection of the political effort to marginalize our voice.”

A month of organizing followed the prayer action, and a much larger rally at Foley Square against the NYPD spying program was held in November with hundreds of people, including a contingent from OWS. Muslim youth broke into chants of “We are the 99 percent” as they marched to NYPD headquarters to make their discontent known.

“It's really critical we create this broad-based movement,” said Faiza Ali, a community activist and organizer who attended the November rally. “On the whole there's a general distaste for the police department and the way they've been operating, especially recently given the police brutality issues being raised at Occupy Wall Street...All of these issues are connected, and [we have] the support of Occupy Wall Street on this issue.”

Muslim activists like Imam Talib 'Abdur-Rashid, the spiritual leader of the Mosque of Islamic Brotherhood in Harlem, say the public pressure on Kelly and the NYPD won't stop until corrective action is taken. Speaking at the January 26 press conference, Abdur-Rashid promised more public protests on these issues in the coming weeks and laid out the stakes.

“We are facing the specter of a 21st-century COINTELPRO,” he told reporters. And activists say the fight is just beginning.

“This is part of a long-term strategy,” Linda Sarsour, a prominent Palestinian-American activist in the NYC Muslim community, recently wrote. “We are not just reacting anymore.” 

This article originally appeared in AlterNet.

A reader asked Andrew Sullivan why he decided to weigh into the Israel firster debate.

He says that some American supporters of Israel are so passionate and defensive that it's a "problem" of conflating interests. 

"There comes a point at which that passion leads to a view where there can never be any distinction between American interests and Israeli interests." When in fact there are thousands of miles between the U.S. and Israel. Israel is a liability, an albatross, Sullivan says.

"Israeli government is clearly orchestrating and is in close contact with a whole bunch of people, range of people inside the U.S. to make their case..." Sullivan wants to cut out the Israel firster language but he addresses the crucial question here: When Sheldon Adelson says that it was unfortunate that he wore an American uniform and not an Israeli uniform, then we are seeing an attachment to Israel on the part of an American political player that is obscuring American interests. (Hard to see why, given his understanding, Israel firster is not legitimate political rhetoric.)

Two great reports re an attack on Iran leave the question, Who wants an attack on Iran?

First, Gareth Porter reports at IPS that the U.S. wants no part of it:

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey told Israeli leaders Jan. 20 that the United States would not participate in a war against Iran begun by Israel without prior agreement from Washington, according to accounts from well-placed senior military officers.

Dempsey's warning, conveyed to both Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Israeli Defence Minister Ehud Barak, represents the strongest move yet by President Barack Obama to deter an Israeli attack and ensure that the United States is not caught up in a regional conflagration with Iran.

And The Independent reports that Israel wants no part of it:

Almost the entire senior hierarchy of Israel's military and security establishment is worried about a premature attack on Iran and apprehensive about the possible repercussions, a former chief of the country's defence forces told The Independent yesterday....

General Lipkin-Shahak stressed that Iran with a nuclear arsenal would be a hugely destabilising factor in the region. But, he said: "It is quite clear that much if not all of the IDF [Israeli Defence Forces] leadership do not support military action at this point."

Lipkin-Shahak is a dove in Israeli terms. Notice that this report directly contradicts Ethan Bronner's frontpage story in the Times that Iran would take an attack lying down.

Where does this leave us? This means that there is a war party, both in Israel and the U.S., that is saber rattling (neocons using Bronner and Jeffrey Goldberg) to try and get the U.S. to attack Iran.

Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney followed the Israeli right's line on Palestinians during last week's Florida debate. To get an idea why Romney's rhetoric was so extreme, just take a look at the schedule of speakers for the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) this year, where Romney is also scheduled to speak.

CPAC, held from February 9-11 in Washington, D.C., will be hosting all the big names in the GOP. And Romney, the front runner and "moderate" Republican, will be lending legitimacy to a conference that includes notorious anti-Muslim speakers, as well as advocates of continued Israeli control of the West Bank. As the success of Newt Gingrich's candidacy shows, this pro-occupation, anti-Muslim outlook on the Middle East is a core part of the Republican Party.

Below are some of the extreme speakers on Islam and the Middle East whom Romney and CPAC, unsurprisingly, have no problem being associated with. 

Pamela Geller, speaking on "Islamic Law in America: How the Obama Justice Department Is Selling Us Out":

When there's a ginned-up controversy over Islam in America, turn to Pamela Geller. The bomb-throwing blogger and anti-Muslim activist has for years denigrated Islam and American Muslims, and she led the fight against the Park 51 Islamic center in lower Manhattan, calling it a "victory mosque." Geller has claimed that Barack Obama is "the secret 'love child' of Malcolm X" and has pined for the destruction of Jerusalem's Dome of the Rock. The Southern Poverty Law Center notes that Geller, "the anti-Muslim movement's most visible and flamboyant figurehead," has "mingled comfortably with European racists and fascists, spoken favorably of South African racists, [and] defended Serbian war criminal Radovan Karadzic." Geller's writings also showed up in the manifesto of Anders Behring Breivik, the perpetrator of the Oslo massacre last year. A recent column lauded Newt Gingrich for defending the "Jewish territories of Judea and Samaria." And in a New York Times interview, Geller explained her devotion to Israel:

Now do I see everything through the prism of Israel? No, I don’t, but I do think it’s a very good guide. It’s a very good guide because, like I said, in the war between the civilized man and the savage, you side with the civilized man

Ilario Pantano/Flickr

Ilario Pantano, speaking on "Islamic Law in America: How the Obama Justice Department Is Selling Us Out":

This Tea Party favorite rose to prominence during the 2010 congressional campaign, which he eventually lost. Pantano is a favorite of the anti-Muslim blogosphere, and made opposition to Park 51 a centerpiece of his campaign in North Carolina. He's also come under fire for an incident that occurred in Iraq, where Pantano served as a Marine. Here's the Guardian on Pantano:

The basic facts are undisputed: on 15 April 2004 Ilario Pantano, then a second lieutenant with the US marines, stopped and detained two Iraqi men in a car near Falluja. The Iraqis were unarmed and the car found to be empty of weapons.

Pantano ordered the two men to search the car for a second time and then, with no other US soldiers in view, unloaded a magazine of his M16A4 automatic rifle into them, before reloading and blasting a second magazine at them – some 60 rounds in total.

Over the corpses, he left a placard inscribed with the marine motto: "No better friend, No worse enemy."

This article authored by Pantano gives a good idea on where's he's coming from:

If we allow mosques to go up like mushrooms everywhere there is a terrorist bombing or shooting we will create a perverse incentive, not a deterrent. This mosque at Ground Zero will serve as a big trophy and we are welcoming it?...

One thank you note can be struck early for the mosque’s front man: Kuwaiti-born Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf. Chairman of the Cordoba Initiative, Rauf is also the CEO of American Society for Muslim Advancement (ASMA). But he’s more than just an apologist for the religion-based sharia law, which many experts see in direct opposition to the U.S. Constitution. Rauf is also a key member of the Malaysia-based Perdana Global Peace Organization, reportedly the single biggest donor to the Free Gaza Movement (FGM) and its affiliated activists, which include former Weather Underground founders William Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, as well as Jodie Evans, the leader of Code Pink: Women for Peace (see discoverthenetworks.org for information on this web of Leftist relationships).

Robert Spencer

Robert Spencer, also speaking on "Islamic Law in America: How the Obama Justice Department Is Selling Us Out":

Geller's partner in the crusade against Muslims, Spencer authored a book that called Islam "the world's most intolerant religion." Here's how the Center for American Progress described Spencer in its landmark report, Fear, Inc: The Roots of the Islamophobia Network in America:

A prolific blogger, author, and commentator, Spencer is “the principal leader... in the new academic field of Islam bashing,” according to Robert Crane, a former deputy director of the U.S. National Security Council and former adviser to President Nixon. Spencer is the primary driver in promoting the myth that peace- ful Islam is nonexistent and that violent extremism is inherent within traditional Islam. “Of course, as I have pointed out many times, traditional Islam itself is not moderate or peaceful,” Spencer said in June this year. “It is the only major world religion with a developed doctrine and tradition of warfare against unbelievers.”

And of course, Spencer is a big backer of Israel, for much the same reason as Geller is. Here's a post Spencer published on his JihadWatch.org site:

And the moral of all this? Israel must give up nothing more. It should have permanently annexed in June 1967 everything it took, but who then knew about Islam in the Israeli government? And more importantly, who in the Israeli government knows a sufficient amount now?

Because if the Israeli government understood the permanent nature of the implacable Muslim and Arab hostility, rooted in the immutable texts of Islam, including in those texts the acts and words of Muhammad as recorded in Hadith and Sira and understood by all Muslim jurisconsults, then the nonsense of further surrender of territory critical to Israel's survival would end. Israel has legal, moral, and historic title to that territory, not least by the preamble and express provisions of the Mandate for Palestine established by the League of Nations.

Those three speakers are just some of the reactionary speakers CPAC is slated to host. But where does Romney fit in all of this? While Romney is perhaps the least anti-Muslim candidate in the race, that doesn't say much.

Romney has come under attack from the right for saying that "I believe people of the Islamic faith do not have to subscribe to the idea of radical, violent jihadism." But he's also pandered to the fear-mongering over the "threat" of sharia law in the U.S. At a CNN debate in June, Romney said: "Of course, we're not going to have Sharia law applied in U.S. courts. That's never going to happen. We have a Constitution and we follow the law."

The worst aspect of Romney's campaign on the Middle East front came when he announced that Walid Phares is serving as a "special adviser" in his "shadow National Security Council." Again, here's the Center for American Progress on Phares:

Walid Phares is currently a senior fellow and the director of the Future Terrorism Project at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies in Washington, D.C. Phares, age 53, also acts as an “expert” lecturer on “Islamist Jihadism” for the Centre for Counterintelligence and Security Studies. Phares is touted as an authentic expert on Muslims and political Islam despite being a former militiaman and foreign affairs spokesman for the mostly Christian Lebanese Front, which was responsible for the Sabra and Shatila massacres of Muslims during the September 1982 Lebanese Civil War.

Phares promotes the conspiracy theory of mainstream Muslim organizations posing as radical Islamist cells. He warns that “jihadists within the West pose as civil rights advocates” and patiently recruit until “[a]lmost all mosques, educational centers,and socioeconomic institutions fall into their hands.” He was originally scheduled to testify at Rep. King’s criticized hearings on the alleged radicalization of the Muslim American community but was dropped at the last moment after his sordid history with the Lebanese Forces was uncovered.

When Phares was asked about his connection to the leadership that allowed the atrocities to occur, he simply replied, “Everybody did silly stuff, on both hands… but amazingly enough, the Guardians of the Cedars [a right-wing Christian religious group within the Lebanese Forces] have been the most moral fighters."
 

With Romney hearing views like that routinely from an adviser, nothing at CPAC should surprise him. And that's the problem.

The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence met yesterday for the annual Worldwide Threat Assessment. And it was broadcast live. Haaretz reports "cursory comments" made by Senator Dianne Feinstein and General David Petraeus indicate they recently met with Mossad chief Tamir Pardo in Washington.

Mossad chief Tamir Pardo Photo: Moti Milrod

Haaretz has an enticing headline: Mossad chief holds secret U.S. meetings on Iran nuclear threat, Senate panel reveals.

The clandestine Washington visit was exposed during a hearing of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, which was participated by CIA Director David Petraeus, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, and Dianne Feinstein, who chairs the Senate panel.

During the meeting, Feinstein asked Clapper whether or not Israel intended to strike Iran's nuclear facilities, with the top U.S. intelligence official answering that he would rather discuss the issue behind closed doors.

Feinstein then indicated that she had met Mossad chief Pardo earlier in the week in Washington, with Petraeus adding that he too met Pardo and cited what he called Israel's growing concern over Iran's nuclear ambitions.

Shocking.

ABC: The following are excerpts from National Director of Intelligence James Clapper's prepared remarks as provided to ABC News.

On Iran: We Don't Know If They'll Go for The Bomb, 'Concerned' About Attack on U.S.

"We assess Iran is keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons, in part by developing various nuclear capabilities that better position it to produce such weapons, should it choose to do so. We do not know, however, if Iran will eventually decide to build nuclear weapons. Iran nevertheless is expanding its uranium enrichment capabilities, which can be used for either civil or weapons purposes."

"Iran's technical advancement, particularly in uranium enrichment, strengthens our assessment that Iran has the scientific, technical, and industrial capacity to eventually produce nuclear weapons, making the central issue its political will to do so. These advancements contribute to our judgment that Iran is technically capable of producing enough highly enriched uranium for a weapon, if it so chooses. We judge Iran would likely choose missile delivery as its preferred method of delivering a nuclear weapon… Elite infighting has reached new levels, as the rift grows between Supreme Leader Khamenei and President Ahmadinejad."

There's more nothing where that comes from.

Shorter Clapper: We don't know what Iran will do but eventually they will have the capacity to produce nuclear weapons if they want to. So the issue is do they have the political will to make a nuclear weapon? Let's just skip over the part about whether Iran would have the will to actually use a nuclear weapon and posit if they did use one, they'd probably decide to deliver it with a missile. If we attack them, they'll attack us back. They have probably plotted an attack already.

That strikes me as a lot of if's for a preemptive strike doesn't it? Plus, there's some stuff in there about the alleged assassination plot on the Saudi ambassador (recall the hokey story about the Mexican under cover agent working for the Iranians, which Jeffrey Goldberg claims to take seriously) indicating the Iranians are "now more willing to conduct an attack in the United States". Uh huh.

I'm reminded of b reviewing Isabel Kershner's reporting, "NYT Introduces New False Propaganda Line," at Moon of Alabama:

"Working to develop a weapons program"? What is that supposed to mean?

Since the NYT ombudsman has admonished the paper for being too casual with references to the non existing Iranian nuclear weapon program, Kersher can no longer refer to it directly.

Instead she now comes up with "is working to develop a weapons program." This phrase has, to my best knowledge, never been used in any official language and I have never seen this accusation before. What is the factual base for Kershner's assertion?

Well, it's not the Worldwide Threat Assessment.

Your Israel lobby at work. Noam Scheiber reports at the New Republic that Romney's big goal in Florida was to convince Sheldon Adelson to drop Newt (whom he and his wife have given $10 million) and come over to his side. So Sheldon Adelson is the prize. I remind you that Adelson has said all he cares about is being a good citizen of Israel, he regrets wearing the American uniform, and he wants the U.S. to attack Iran because of his fears for Israel.

When are the liberal media going to report openly on the Israel lobby's workings in our politics? TNR:

Which is why, as he pulled away from Gingrich in the polls these last few days, Romney’s mission became less about winning Florida than impressing Adelson. Actually, the mission was twofold. First, Romney needed to win by a big enough margin that no one, not even the staunchest Newt dead-ender, could keep alive fantasies of a Gingrich presidency. Second, he needed to persuade Adelson that he was “alright,” as the Vegas wise guys would say, when it came to Israel. Romney needed to make a play for Adelson’s head and his heart, in other words, either one of which could have moved the mogul to cut another check. 

We won’t know for several days whether Romney succeeded. But my hunch is that he did. If the results hold, Romney will have outpolled the combined Santorum-Gingrich total, albeit narrowly (46-45). That plainly undercuts the argument that a single conservative candidate could overtake Romney by consolidating the party’s right-wing. As for Israel, it’s hard to believe Romney didn’t have one eye on Vegas when he said things like, “This president went before the United Nations and castigated Israel for building settlements, he said nothing about thousands of rockets being rained in on Israel from the Gaza Strip,” as he did in Thursday night’s debate. (The other eye would have been on Florida’s Jewish population, of course.) 

But the biggest indicator of Romney’s success at sidelining Adelson may have been Gingrich himself.