Many critics have argued that there is a concerted effort to push the United States into a war with Iran by supporters of Israel. Patrick Clawson, director of research for the highly influential pro-Israel Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP) think tank, seemed intent to prove those rumors true this week in comments as a luncheon on “How to Build US-Israeli Coordination on Preventing an Iranian Nuclear Breakout.” Clawson casually discusses how to create a false flag operation to push the U.S. into war to overcome any reluctance by the public. We have been discussing how many leaders like Senator Joe Lieberman had begun to use the same rhetoric that led to the last two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and how the suggest timing of an attack has been tied to the presidential election.
In his remarks, Clawson helpfully lists a series of historical events used to push the country into war like the Gulf of Tonkin incident that gave us the Vietnam War. Clawson expressed his frustration in acknowledging that it is “[v]ery hard for me to see how the United States President can get us to war with Iran.” However, there is hope. Clawson explains that the “traditional way” to get the country into a war is through false flags or manufactured incidents where Americans are killed. Thus, he observes, “we are in the game of using covert means against the Iranians, we could get nastier about it. So, if in fact the Iranians aren’t going to compromise, it would be best if somebody else started the war.”
The fact that one of the leading analysis for the WINEP would feel comfortable in making such comments is itself quite chilling. It indicates that such discussions have become sufficiently regular that it has creeped into public discussion. It is a measure of the secret pressure building to push this country into a third major war despite our crippling economic conditions and losses in military personnel. The assumption in Washington is that neither Romney nor Obama could oppose such a war. Even if Obama does not publicly support Israel, the assumption is that political allies of Israel in Washington can guarantee that we would offer extensive military loans and intelligence. Even if there is a delay in such military loans and support, the assumption is that Israel can go to war with the understanding that the United States will cover a significant portion of the costs. Moreover, in his remarkably candid remarks, Clawson shows how the U.S. can easily be forced into direct combat by pushing Iran to simply kill some Americans or sink a few of our ships. Then members would be clamoring for revenge. Notably, the Israelis have been ratcheting up the war rhetoric in pushing Iran, which predictably has now reserved the right to engage in a preemptive strike not just against Israeli but U.S. interests. We would then, again, find ourselves in a war without any public debate or collective decision.
While Clawson adds a passing caveat that he is not advocating such an approach, his remarks are clearly designed to show how the group can get the United States into a war for Israel if only we can get Iran to kill some of our citizens or soldiers. Those people are of course expendable props in Clawson’s realpolitik.
By the way, Clawson has been enlisted to give his insightful analysis at the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. He is also a member of the National Defense University’s Institute for National Strategic Studies. The World Bank connection is particularly interesting given the history with Paul Wolfowitz who pushed the U.S. into two disastrous wars in the Bush Administration and was rewarded with being made the head of the World Bank.
It is the callous disconnect that is most chilling in these remarks. Thousands of U.S. soldiers have died or have been crippled for life in these wars that have left the country near bankruptcy (and increasingly hostile “allies” in Afghanistan and Iraq). Those casualties and costs, however, appear immaterial in the discussion of supporting Israel in a war against Iran.
Bottom Line: Leftist Turley wants to see a nuclear-armed Iran because that would put the heat on those Joos in Israel, who are too busy advancing civilization instead of promoting Leftist causes. If Turley were around when Hitler was rising in power, he also would have been calling for the USA to stay out of Germany’s business, when the correct move would have been to bomb the crap out of Hitler before he even got started. Same for Ahmadinijad and his Muslim terrorist buddies. Turley likes to wait and wait until the enemies of civlization do some really serious damage. As usual, he uses the alibi of the lives of American troops being risked, when in reality, Turley doesn’t give a hoot about American soldiers in any shape of form.
In addition to Turley’s knee-jerk Leftist response to support any anti-Israel causes, Turley no doubt also feels personally inferior to the many Jewish lawyers who spin circles around him. Not that that is particularly challenging when it comes to dealing with Leftist lawyers like him. But I’m sure Turley would feel a lot better about himself if cicumstances were such that all those Joo attorneys out there would just go away to make room for Turley’s Leftist mediocrity.
Matt, there is first Bad Lip Reading and then there is Bad Google Translation. Icon suffers from the latter. I don’t even want to think about the former.
Seems like Icon doesn’t know how to communicate. It is what it is.
It is a pity, that I can not participate in discussion now. It is not enough information. But this theme me very much interests.
I am sorry, it not absolutely that is necessary for me. Who else, what can prompt?
idealist707 1, September 28, 2012 at 10:46 am
And our pitiful but destructive efforts. The first oil gusher ushere in the era of climate change, in a few years irreversible as the thawing arctic releases the frozen methane. From glorious diversity to a cloud swepted twin to 800 centigrade Venus. No protein based animal can exist then.
=============================================
Some people think it’s already irreversible.
Gene H.
Aye, Mike. Not enough people consider the failure of Truman to place proper safeguards on the intelligence community when he converted the OSS into the CIA. Not Harry’s finest hour.
————————————————————–
This was a subject that was on my Research To Do List … lack of safeguards … you just saved me hours of eyestrain. Thank you.
Just to embroider:
“I personally believe its stranglehold began with the creation of the CIA and reached fruition in the Kennedy murder.”
Yes, emphatically so. But the events before and during WW II were scurrilous too. An organization was created, yes. But the goals and means were well-exercised before its creation. IBM was aiding the Holocaust. Corporate goals before national or humanitarian. Economic baronage has existed since 1840. And they wrote their own Magna Carta, and paid Congress for it.
The Bolsheviks did it in ca 5 years. Following one totalitarian regime by another goes quicker.
Hitler’s went quickly because the history of active democracy was short and the economic and emotional angst accelerated the splintering of the society.
You mean, in effect, that it took from ca 1945 to 1963, when the final decision must have been made for them to seize the remaining reins. What took them so long? And what precipitated it just then?
Not faulting, just wondering aloud.
Did they really fear that the power of Kennedy could counter their secret treason?
Is this the first time we have seen the collapse of the freedom custodial branches when struck with a created crisis.
I don’t believe that NASA sacrificed the Challenger astronauts. But the the investigation and resolution smelled too familiar from older occasions.
Whitther goeth we? And when comes the next arranged crisis?
And our pitiful but destructive efforts. The first oil gusher ushere in the era of climate change, in a few years irreversible as the thawing arctic releases the frozen methane. From glorious diversity to a cloud swepted twin to 800 centigrade Venus. No protein based animal can exist then.
“But the goals and means were well-exercised before its creation. IBM was aiding the Holocaust. Corporate goals before national or humanitarian.”
ID707,
I was familiar with the IBM situation: http://jonathanturley.org/2012/03/03/a-corporate-tale/ . I also agree that international skullduggery in the name of wealth is an old human story. Why I delineated the latter half of the 19th Century as a starting point was that for the most part American wealth prior to that time was land based and not really interested in Foreign entanglement. The Republicans were basically an Isolationist Party up until WWII, even though Standard Oil and United Fruit had other ideas.
A glimpse of what goes on (went on) behind the curtain: http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/missouri-senators-demand-details-on-military-testing-in-s-and/article_013d1152-08f4-11e2-a699-001a4bcf6878.html
Aye, Mike. Not enough people consider the failure of Truman to place proper safeguards on the intelligence community when he converted the OSS into the CIA. Not Harry’s finest hour.
An October surprise appears to be off the table. Netanyahu realizes he does not have enough support.
Iran Responds To Netanyahu U.N. Speech: We Will Retaliate Against Attack