It looks like the War Party is
victorious, at least according to Philip Giraldi
writing on The American Conservative blog:
"There is considerable speculation and buzz in Washington
today suggesting that the National Security Council has agreed in
principle to proceed with plans to attack an Iranian al-Quds-run
camp that is believed to be training Iraqi militants. The camp that
will be targeted is one of several located near Tehran. Secretary of
Defense Robert Gates was the only senior official urging delay in
taking any offensive action."
Alarm bells ought to be going off across the nation. The
presidential candidates ought to be debating whether or not this is
the right course. Obama, the "antiwar" candidate, ought to be
Instead, what we hear is
silence. If ever there was a scoop,
then this is a major one. Yet not a word is being spoken about it in
the "mainstream" media. So much for the supposedly highly
competitive nature of the news business. While I'm a very big fan of
The American Conservative hey, they made me an associate
editor! one has to wonder: why do we have to read this on
their blog and nowhere else?
Of course, the reason could be because it's not true, but my
sources are telling me that this isn't just "speculation and buzz"
it's for real. War is imminent. The markets sense it, too, which is
why the price of oil keeps climbing to record
Giraldi has more:
"The White House contacted the Iranian government directly
yesterday through a channel provided by the leadership of the
Kurdish region in Iraq, which has traditionally had close ties to
Tehran. The U.S. demanded that Iran admit that it has been
interfering in Iraq and also commit itself to taking steps to end
the support of various militant groups. There was also a warning
about interfering in Lebanon. The Iranian government reportedly
responded quickly, restating its position that it would not discuss
the matter until the U.S. ceases its own meddling employing Iranian
dissident groups. The perceived Iranian intransigence coupled with
the Lebanese situation convinced the White House that some sort of
unambiguous signal has to be sent to the Iranian leadership,
presumably in the form of cruise missiles."
A decision to go to war, sub rosa back-and-forth between
Washington and Tehran using the Kurds (probably the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, which
has close ties to Iran) as intermediaries, missile strikes near
Tehran, the dissent of Robert Gates: all of this is very big news.
Yet not a word is reaching the general public.
The same pattern that characterized the run-up to war with Iraq
is being employed in the case of Iran. We're acting on intelligence
that is so overcooked the stench is overpowering.
There is no evidence these alleged training camps even exist, or, if
they do, that their purpose is to train Iraqi "militants." Indeed,
all efforts to show the media hard evidence for this phantom threat
seem to have evaporated into thin
air: these charges are the intelligence community's equivalent
The irony is that this "training camp" tale is coming a bit late,
because the Iranians did train, equip, and otherwise succor
Iraqi "militants" all through
the 1980s and '90s such as the militants of the Council for
the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (now known simply as the Islamic
Council), which is today the biggest of the parties in Baghdad's
coalition. This is also true of the second largest component of
the coalition, the Da'wa
party whose most prominent member is Prime Minister Nouri
al-Maliki. Virtually all the present leaders of the government U.S.
soldiers are laying down their lives for, including Maliki, lived in
Iran for years, where they were given sanctuary and sustenance by
On the other hand, the Mahdi
Army of Moqtada
al-Sadr, which is presently taking on the government's armed
forces, is anti-Iranian and vehemently nationalist, the
only viable counterweight to Tehran's all-pervasive influence in
postwar Iraq. Yet we are providing air
support to the Iraqi army and police units battling them in the
streets of Sadr City.
What sparked the decision to strike Iran wasn't anything
happening on the ground in Iraq, however. It's all about Lebanon. As
Giraldi puts it:
"The decision to go ahead with plans to attack Iran is the
direct result of concerns being expressed over the deteriorating
situation in Lebanon, where Iranian ally Hezbollah appears to have
gained the upper hand against government forces and might be able to
dominate the fractious political situation."
Translation: The Israelis are demanding war with Iran, and the
national security bureaucracy thoroughly riddled with and
corrupted by the
neocons has capitulated.
The Israeli failure to dislodge Hezbollah from its Lebanese
fortress and subvert their growing political dominance a direct
result of the 2006
war has Tel Aviv in a tizzy. The whole point of their "Clean Break"
strategy, the linchpin
of the American neocons' decade-long drive to embroil us in Iraq,
has been compromised and even reversed by Hezbollah's continuing
defiance. Tel Aviv wants them taken out by the U.S., which alone
has the firepower to do it.
This has been the real
purpose of the "surge" all along to prepare the ground for the
final assault on Israel's deadliest enemy in the region, which is
Iran. This is why Israel's lobby in the U.S. has made ratcheting-up
tensions with Tehran their number-one
priority, and clearly their relentless campaign is succeeding.
Once again, the prime directive of U.S. foreign policy in the
Middle East stands revealed for all with eyes to see: it's all about
It is surely not in our interests to go after Tehran:
ideologically, the Shi'ite mullahs are a necessary counterweight to
the Sunni fanatics who are swelling the ranks of al-Qaeda. Yet we
are actively encouraging and even funding similar groups, such as Jundallah, an
Iranian Sunni terrorist group that apes al-Qaeda's tactics, such as
its victims. As Seymour Hersh has reported,
the same crazy covert operation is being carried out in Lebanon.
None of this makes any sense, until and unless one realizes that
the purpose of the Great Middle
Eastern War has nothing to do with the pursuit of American
interests and everything to do with Israeli interests. Our foreign
policy has been hijacked and
placed at the disposal
of a foreign power, one with a very powerful American lobby so
powerful that no U.S. politician dares defy it, including
In the early years of the war
hysteria that enveloped the U.S. after the 9/11 terrorist
attacks, I was met with a large degree of skepticism when I maintained
that the main force behind the U.S. attack on Iraq was the Israel
lobby's influence. Even my fellow anti-interventionists, including
many on the Left, viewed this focus as an unreasonable and quite
possibly unhealthy fixation, an exaggeration of a partial truth,
rooted in a special animus for Israel. Perhaps, they thought, it was
even evidence of anti-Semitism.
Yet as the years wear on and the facts pointing to the validity
of my thesis accumulate, the reality can no longer be ignored. Why,
in the name of all that's holy, are we expanding a war that has
proven to be such a monumental
failure? Why are our leaders ignoring the evaluation of our own
Intelligence Estimate on the question of Iran's nuclear program
which shows that they abandoned their nascent nukes, just as
and insisting that Tehran will soon wield a nuclear sword, perhaps
against Israel? Why are American politicians defying their own war-weary people
and launching a conflict that will doubtless
prove even less popular than the one in which we are currently
None of this makes any sense unless we accept the hijacking
thesis: U.S. policy is the captive of foreign interests,
specifically Israeli interests. We are, all of us, held hostage by
Israel lobby, which has a stranglehold on the political
establishment in this country. That's not a "conspiracy theory,"
because it's no secret: the effort to mold U.S. policy to suit
Israeli interests is open to the point of brazenness.
That's why Hillary
Clinton can get away with threatening to "obliterate"
an entire country Iran, of course in the name of "protecting" nuclear-armed
Israel. And that's why Obama is silent on this issue, except to take
task for voting in favor of the Kyl-Lieberman
resolution. That resolution passed overwhelmingly in both the
House and the Senate designated the Iranian Revolutionary Guards a
"terrorist" organization and gave the president advance permission
to bomb those "training camps," i.e., Iranian military installations
on Iranian territory.
"The decision to proceed with plans for an attack is not final,"
Giraldi writes. "The president will still have to give the order to
launch after all preparations are made."
If it's down to George W.
Bush, who reportedly
fears that Iran's acquisition of nukes will be his lasting legacy,
then we're really in trouble. An attack on Iran before his
term is up seems a veritable certainty.
Where is the antiwar movement? Where are the supposedly "antiwar"
politicians of the Democratic Party? These folks are nowhere to be
seen, and certainly they are not being heard. The reason? They're
cowards, who are to a man and woman beholden to the Lobby. MoveOn.org, for example, is
running ads against a war that is already five years old and
widely abhorred, but is silent when it comes to the next war,
which could break out at any moment.
The antiwar movement, such as it is, had better get up off its
collective ass. Because we don't have much time. As the sand in the
hourglass rapidly diminishes, the war cries of the neocons and their
allies in both parties are getting louder
and more insistent. It's time to start making some noise of our own
before it's too late.
NOTES IN THE MARGIN
One aspect of the Internet that has
changed writing as an art is the matter of length. In the world of
dead-tree publishing, it was almost impossible to find a venue for a
7,000-word essay like "Mishima:
Paleocon as Samurai," my latest essay to appear in Taki's
Magazine. It was simply too expensive to put out. Today, it's all
very different. At any rate, Mishima is one of my favorite writers,
and I had great fun with this piece, so go check
~ Justin Raimondo