Here comes another propaganda campaign designed to lull western publics into thinking that a military attack on a Middle East nation will likely be a whole lot more successful than most experts currently think.
“Cakewalk”, anyone?
The cakewalk is now being promised us is in Iran… and by that highly ideological, anti-Islamic Republic figure Patrick Clawson, deputy director of AIPAC’s longtime research offshoot, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.
In the article linked to there, Clawson discusses with Israeli commentator Yossi Melman the reasons he and fellow WINEP-er Michael Eisenstadt give in a forthcoming publication for why a military attack on Iran could be much more successful than most people currently fear.
Clawson seems to realize that he is trying to make a very tough argument, since he starts off with the old canard of obfuscation that “matters are a whole lot more complex than you think,” since there are “many variables” involved.
Melman asks: “Do you share the sweeping assessment of most experts that Iran’s reaction if attacked will be harsh and painful?” Clawson: “No. Iran’s record when it comes to its reactions in the past to attacks against it, or its important interests, is mixed… ” And he gives some examples from the 1980s and the early 1990s.
He makes no mention at all of the fact that the strategic picture in the Gulf region has changed considerably since then– including, crucially, that the US military now has 160,000 sitting ducks sitting in Iraq, just a stone’s throw away from Iran, with most of them in areas where the population is much, much more sympathetic to Iran’s interests than they are to the US’s.
This is, indeed, a key aspect of the currently re-emerging talk about “an attack” on Iran before Pres. Bush leaves office. Many participants in this talk gloss over the issue of whether it would be Israel or the US that launches the attack. In Melman’s questioning of Clawson, the assumption on both sides seems to be– as spelled out in one of Melman’s questions– that it would be
So we here in the U.S. should be clear that Clawson, like a number of other strongly pro-Israeli figures, is openly arguing for an Israeli attack on Iran that will put thousands of US troops– and the very lengthy and vulnerable supply lines on which they depend– directly at risk of Iran’s retaliation.
Given the extremely close degree of military and political cooperation between the Israeli government and the Bush administration, if Israel launches a military attack against Iran then no-one inside Iran (or anywhere else) would find credible any protestation from the US government that it “was not involved at all” in the attack. Indeed, it is impossible to see how the Israelis could deliver warheads against targets inside Iran without the passage of those warheads (on missiles or planes) through US-controlled security environments– in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, or the Gulf– having been cleared in advance by the US at the highest levels.
If any US government official colludes in any way with a plan whereby either Israeli or American weapons and plans are used to launch an attack against Iran that is not directly allowed by the UN Security Council, then that official is surely guilty of the highest levels of treason against our citizenry’s deepest interests. Like the majority of other US citizens, I have had quite enough of Israeli and pro-Israeli figures using cockamamie arguments to try to cajole my government into launching (or colluding in Israel’s launching of) a quite unjustified military attack against a Middle Eastern nation, thereby putting the lives of my fellow-citizens who are in the US military, and bound to follow the orders of their superiors, directly at risk.
All this re-emerging talk of an attack against Iran in the coming months– whether the attack has an Israeli “face” or a directly US one– needs to be decisively quashed. (Coincidentally, doing this could also help calm many of the current jitters in the global oil market.)
The best way to quash it, from the highest levels of US decisionmaking, would be for President Bush to declare publicly that
- (1) The US government does not seek and will not pursue any form of externally-pushed “regime change” in Iran,
(2) The US seeks to re-open full diplomatic relations with the Islamic Republic or Iran, and
(3) The US wants to start broad negotiations with Iran (and the involvement of other relevant parties, as needed) on the whole range of issues that currently divide the two governments, and seeks the help of the UN Secretary-General in convening these talks.
This is not “giving away the store.” This is not the “appeasement” that Pres. Bush is so terrified of. This is a way of resolving international disagreements that has been tried and tested throughout the centuries. It’s called “diplomacy.”
Yes, they promised a cakewalk. How untrue. I just uploaded al Manar documentaries here on Iran’s military. See for yourself how nice it would be to irritate the Iranians.
My view of this article is that it is pie-in-the-sky stuff, and appears in an Israeli publication, even if Ha’aretz is a reputable newspaper, not in a US publication, such as the WP or NYT.
No-one doubts now that a strong movement exists, continues to exist, for an attack on Iran, however weak the justification may be. Indeed no justification at all.
Many in Israel, and some in power in the US, have chosen the path of military solutions to foreign policy problems. It’s an engaging path which leads on to further wars until a final apocalypse. The Nazis chose that path, but further back, Napoleon took the same road.
The position today is more complicated, in the sense that it is by no means evident that the military apocalypsists have won the political game (not true of Hitler or Napoleon, who were in control of domestic political opinion).
Everybody who is not crazy recognises that a war against Iran is difficult to “win”. Ahmadinejad is far from popular, but Iranian nationalism is extremely powerful, and virtually any attack on Iran will kick it into action. It is difficult to imagine any sort of bombing campaign which would not swing Iranian opinion behind the government.
A light attack, such as on the al-Quds training camps, they would be wise to ignore. A major bombing attack would bring in unending war.
Unending war may be the intention. Why not? It brings in money to the arms establishment.
I never cease to be amazed by the logic of those who look to war. In their view the resources of the US are limitless. Wars have to be paid for. We are already seeing the consequences.
I have no idea which faction will win, but that it is a factional fight, I have no doubt.
On the direct question raised by the Israeli authors, that of the effectiveness of an Iranian missile bombardment of Israel, they could be right. The number of Iranian missiles which actually land in Israel might be limited. However like the War of the Cities (Iraq-Iran) in the 1980s, it could go on for a long time. The 2006 war showed how vulnerable Israel is even to inaccurate bombardment.
“”No. Iran’s record when it comes to its reactions in the past to attacks against it, or its important interests, is mixed… ”
MIXED? My a**! If I recall, Iran took out much of Saddam’s oil industry at the start of their war. Iran might not need to take out anybody’s oil infrastructure this time–just take out the occasional oil tanker in the Persian Gulf, insurance companies would cease to insure, oil prices would skyrocket, and the industrialized world would squeak to a halt.
If Israel provokes such a retaliation, at least we’ll all know who to blame this time around.
Helena, you and a number of other very smart, concerned, and knowledgeable people consistently see the U.S. making a series of statements or declarations as helpful in all kinds of situations from Iraq to now the talk about attacking Iran.
I personally do not believe a syllable that comes out of the mouth of anyone remotely affiliated with the Bush regime. Do you seriously believe that anyone else does? For example, do you seriously believe that any Iraqi would consider a declaration from Bush that he does not plan a permanent stay in Iraq worth the cost of the hot air that carries the sound of his voice? I don’t. Words mean nothing, particularly coming from that gang of professional liars. Only actions matter, and even those are not particularly trustworthy. So, why do you keep recommending mere words as a way to calm things down? I don’t think they would have the slightest effect.
why do you keep recommending mere words as a way to calm things down?
US will never attack Iran, anyone keep saying opposite “he/she” either didn’t reading between the lines or somehow missing GWB and other those who direct Democracy in ME agenda that not include Iran.
look not far to US in Iraq were the regime change war strengthen Iran mangling inside Iraq under US very close eyes by bringing, supporting and funded those Iranian’s midwifed allies
On April 14, the British newspaper The Independent revealed that there have been multiple informal sessions for the exchange of opinions between various Iranian and American figures in the last few years. These were spearheaded on the US side by former senior diplomat Thomas Pickering, and Sick was among the experts who participated in these meetings. “They [the informal meetings] should not be a substitute for actual one-to-one talks between the two country’s diplomats. But they serve an important purpose: to familiarize each side with the other’s positions,”
So we here in the U.S. should be clear that
Clawson, like a number of other strongly pro-Israeli figures, is openly arguing for an Israeli attack on Iran
An absurd misreading of the piece. If Clawson were advocating an Israeli attack, why would he call his paper (the one none of us has read) “The Last Resort?”
Here’s Clawson:
the United States should engage Iran in a serious dialogue about the conditions under which the United States would be willing to live with the Islamic Republic….The United States should indicate that it does not intend to forcefully remove the regime, provided that the latter does not directly challenge vital U.S. interests.
Maybe envisioning an attack isn’t the same as advocating for one?
Iran might not need to take out anybody’s oil infrastructure this time–just take out the occasional oil tanker in the Persian Gulf
and I guess nobody would be ‘taking out’ their oil tankers? Where would they find refined products to fuel their army? From the gulf states whose tankers they’re ‘taking out?”
Luckily (as always) we have little reason to suspect one will occur. Notorious pro-Palestinian Yossi Melman has (just like Helena) been hyping this big showdown for a very long time (see eg http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/763287.html)
AIPAC’s longtime research offshoot, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.
AIPAC and WINEP have no affiliation, beyond the crude conspiracies you’re trying to promote with constructions like this. Nor have you any factual grounds to hitch Melman’s obvious agenda to WINEP. Its most recent position papers addressing Iran do not promote a military attack; far from it.
from Kurt Campbell:
In light of these problems, the next president will need to understand
the limits of U.S. power and, perhaps, consider the Cold War concept of
coexistence.
Charles Hill:
Taking [military] action against Iran…would be detrimental to the United States.
I guess the opinions of these notorious pro-Israelis is uninteresting to you. Or unknown?
Vadim – were you born yesterday? Are you serious? If Clawson were advocating an Israeli attack, why would he call his paper (the one none of us has read) “The Last Resort?”
It is standard operating procedure, textbook, a characteristic of modern war that everyone, especially including frequent aggressors like the US and Israel make a comical pretence that they are helpless giants, reactive to events, who only go to war as a last resort. Boo-hoo. The louder such protestations, the clearer the aggression.
John R, Clawson’s other writings (readable NOW and in the original rather than between-the-lines guesswork as seen here) he doesn’t “argue for” an attack, and neither do any of his senior colleagues at WINEP. If you or anyone here had read WINEP’s papers on Iran in greater depth then you’ would know this already.
Analysis of military power clearly doesn’t entail advocacy of its use, otherwise JohnH would be advocating strikes on US flagged crude tankers.
This tendency to lecture “pro Israelis” on their conjectured beliefs leads not to “dialogue” but “parallel monologues”.
Vadim, I was not commenting in any way on the still unpublished Clawson-Eisenstadt paper, but on the published record of Clawson’s interview by Melman.
Shirin, I don’t think the uttering of words (= the committing of speech acts) on its own is a significant guarantee of non-aggression by any power, including the US– especially if that power has a prior record of either aggression, or high-level mendacity, or both. However, in the interactions among the civilized nations words do still count for something. I would like to see our government return to a level of the highest probity in its truth-telling, obviously.
In addition, I think speech– especially the speech of government leaders– can and does make a difference. It can seriously escalate tensions, as in the uttering of hate-speech of all kinds, or it can de-escalate tensions.
In the latter category, I would certainly put a US government declaration of “No first use” of nuclear weapons. The US is the only one of the recognized NW-holding nations that has not issued such a declaration. Its consistent refusal to issue a no-first-use declaration– especially when allied to the repeated vows from the present administration that “all options are on the table” regarding Iran– is a significant escalator of tensions throughout the whole region, and globally.
Could we have 100% trust in such a declaration– from the US or anyone else? No. The world community should adopt the Reaganesque approach of “trust but verify” (doverai no proverai). This proverai-ing would include a global regime of monitoring the “readiness” state of the NW arsenals of all NW states. The US’s nuclear arsenal is still, very disturbingly, poised on a hair-trigger of hyper-alertness, and that readiness state needs to be considerably reined back… (More discussion of these issues here.)
I was not commenting in any way on the still unpublished Clawson-Eisenstadt paper, but on the published record of Clawson’s interview by Melman.
Yet nothing in this interview -where the outcome of an Israeli attack is described– could be read as “supportive” of such an attack. Especially since this interpretation contradicts Clawson’s stated position on the matter (which as a harsh critic of WINEP you’ve surely encountered).
Not very careful reading or reporting. And the “pro-Israel” stuff is entirely gratuitous.
From U.S.A Today, before Ambassador Crocker’s May 28, 2007 meeting:
From The Guardian, after the meeting:
From Jan 24, 2008 Stratfor
Summary
Analysis
Vadim, your reply is besides the point. Thinking that entitling a piece “The Last Resort” is in any way contradictory to advocacy for aggression, rather than highly consistent, is naive. On the point of lecturing, a long time ago when I inquired where you got your beliefs about the Arab-Israeli conflict from and stated that Israeli has generally been the aggressor, you were so perturbed you called that “bigotry.” I’m still curious. I and many others are also pro-Israel – I think that state should abandon its moronic policy of attacking its neighbors, respect the UN Charter and the Geneva Conventions at least to the level its more law abiding neighbors like Syria do, and make peace on the generous terms it has been offered. The same goes for the US. We should try to act as civilized as Iran does. We have a long way to go.
Thinking that entitling a piece “The Last Resort” is in any way contradictory to advocacy for aggression, rather than highly consistent, is naive
I’d ask you to re-read the post and ask yourself who is off topic. Helena’s remarks don’t concern the still-unread paper or its title but only the opinions represented in Melman’s interview. She seems to think that in it, Clawson is “openly arguing for an Israeli attack on Iran.” Do you? If so, I’d say you’re imagining things.
Having read the interview, it isn’t obvious to me that Clawson is “promising a cakewalk”, or promoting any kind of conflict. All he’s doing is discussing a hypothetical outcome of an attack we know he opposes. But maybe my views are colored by knowledge of Clawson and WINEP, not the product of an admitted anti-Israeli, anti-WINEP bias. Knowing that Clawson has publicly come out against a military attack on Iran, it’s hard for me to interpret anything here as a reversal of this position.
If you truly don’t share her very general hostility to ‘pro-Israelis’ you might join me in asking her to represent their opinions a bit more scrupulously. Perhaps also not to use the term “pro-Israeli” as some kind of well-poisoning slur. Maybe you’d agree that “pro-Israelis” come in all flavors.. .lumping them all together as warmongering aggressors should be offensive to you (another “pro-Israeli”) as it is to me.
Building a Case for Attack on Iran’s Nuclear Sites03:51 25/05/2008, Jim Lobe, news, Antiwar.com Blog
“To Helena Cobban, the estimable Middle East analyst whose blog, http://www.justworldnews.org, is widely read here in Washington and in the region, the paper smacks of “cakewalk” all over again. Cobban, who also works with the Friends Committee on National Legislation (FCNL) and who just published a new book entitled Re-Engage! America and the World After Bush, critiques the argument *here*. I would note that I received alarmed e-mail messages from three experts in the region — one Israeli and two Arabs — that referred me to the Haaretz article and suggested, like Cobban, that it could mark the launch of a new propaganda effort.”
At one time all those bufoons in the administration were behind Bush. Although I am not a fan of any of them I really believe that Bush will do what he wants regardless of advice by anyone. He has been anxious to go to war with Iran and the idea that he would even explore diplomacy is not within the realm of possibility.
He needs something climatic at this point before he leaves office. I doubt Israel knowing the sentiment of most Americans would pre-emptively strike. The biggest battle in the Mid-east is one pointed out by someone I interviewed on my radio show Susmit Kumar The Modernization of Islam. He says the battle between secular and religious forces for control of governments is the dominant conflict. We just don’t seem to get it that we are in the way of a revolution. Yes, Israel is in the cross hairs because for most Arabs peace means justice and that means re-claiming Arab land. A great DVD is Farewell to Israel by Joel Gilbert. After interviewing him on my show I had a different perspective of what it is that the major forces in the Mid-East want. They hate us more because we are on their land than because of our culture.By the way, check out Dick Cheney’s interview on moveon.org in which he gives all the reasons why the US should not to war in Iraq. It was before the war obviously. No it will all be decided by the dictator himself because Americans have been loath to realize how dangerous the man really is.