What U.S. "Interests" in the Middle East are the U.S. Military Protecting?
A good question about American interests in the Middle East but what is the answer?
October 13, 2012Alan Hart - In an article for TomDispatch, Peter Van Buren (a U.S. Foreign Service Officer for many years) posed what he described as Six Critical Foreign Policy Questions That Won’t Be Raised in Presidential Debates. Question three was under the headline – What do we want from the Middle East?
The preamble to the specific question was this:
“Is it all about oil? Israel? Old-fashioned hegemony and containment? What is our goal in fighting an intensifying proxy war with Iran, newly expanded into cyberspace? Are we worried about a nuclear Iran, or just worried about a new nuclear club member in general? Will we continue the nineteenth century game of supporting thug dictators who support our policies in Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Libya (until overwhelmed by events on the ground), and opposing the same actions by other thugs who disagree with us like Iraq’s Saddam Hussein and Syria’s Bashar al-Assad? That kind of policy thinking did not work out too well in the long run in Central and South America, and history suggests that we should make up our mind on what America’s goals in the Middle East might actually be. No cheating now – having no policy is a policy of its own.”Then the specific question:
“Candidates, can you define America’s predominant interest in the Middle East and sketch out a series of at least semi-sensical actions in support of it?”In my view, the honest answer (which won’t come from the lips of President Obama or Mitt Romney) is something like the following.
The U.S. has always had two predominant interests in the Middle East.
The first was guaranteeing the flow of oil at the lowest possible price even when that meant supporting corrupt and repressive Arab regimes which would do America’s bidding. (Saudi Arabia’s King Faisal, in my view, the first and the last truly great Arab leader of modern times, was assassinated because he was no longer willing to be an American puppet, a fact he demonstrated by, among other things, defying Henry Kissinger with his support for Arafat and the PLO.)
The second was to do with the fact that the Military Industrial Complex, in all of its manifestations, is the biggest single creator of jobs and wealth in America. It not only needed wars to guarantee the flow of tax dollars into its coffers, it also needed very wealthy Arab client states to buy its products. (In 2011, U.S. weapons sales reached a record high of $66 billion. America's largest customer was Saudi Arabia, which purchased more than $33 billion worth of weapons from the U.S., including dozens of F-15 fighter jets and missiles. The Obama administration proudly said that this deal alone would be a major stimulus to the U.S. economy and generate 75,000 new jobs. The United Arab Emirates and Oman also spent billions on buying American weapons.)
In the last decade or two of the 20th century the U.S. has had a third predominant interest in the Middle East — It was having in power Arab regimes which were prepared to spend big amounts of the wealth of their countries on keeping the American economy going, and quite possibly preventing it from collapsing, by buying American debt. This purchase of U.S. debt instruments (paper promises) enabled Americans to go on living beyond their means and helped to create a national debt which is now approaching $17 trillion. (The other two major purchasers of American debt were Japan and China.)
The second part of Van Buren’s specific question asked the candidates to outline some actions they would take to support American interests in the Middle East.
We know how the neo-cons (Jewish and non-Jewish supporters of Israel right or wrong) would respond to that question if they were honest. They’d say, “We need more wars.”
Van Buren mentioned Israel only once and with a question mark. In my analysis Israel has been and continues to be a predominant American interest in the Middle East for two related reasons.
1. One is the ignorance of the vast majority of Americans. I mean ignorance in the sense that they have been conditioned to believe a version of history, Zionism’s version, which is a pack of propaganda lies. The consequence is that they, the vast majority of Americans, have no understanding of what the conflict is really all about, who the real victims are, and why it is not in America’s own best interests to go on supporting Israel (the oppressor) right or wrong.
2. The related reason is that this ignorance has made it easy for the Zionist lobby, through its stooges in Congress, to call the shots for policy on the Israel-Palestine conflict.
I am in no doubt that Obama, unlike Romney, is completely aware that the biggest real threat to America’s own best interests in the Middle East (and the whole of the wider Muslim world) is the Zionist state, on account of the anger and the despair provoked by a combination of its contempt for international law and arrogance of power, and America’s lack of will to call and hold the Zionist monster to account for its crimes.
If I was in the audience for the next presidential debate, the question I would want to put to Obama and Romney is this: Do you believe it is in America’s own best interests to go on supporting Israel, right or wrong?
If the answer was “No,” the follow-up question would have to be: In order to best protect America’s own interests, will you be prepared to take whatever action is necessary to require Israel to end its defiance of international law?
US Navy bolsters presence in Gulf after Iran seizure
April 30, 2015AFP - US warships protecting American-flagged ships in the Strait of Hormuz may extend assistance to other countries' vessels, officials said Friday, after reports of Iranian forces harassing shipping.
The expanded US naval presence is
intended to signal to Iran that Washington is ready to safeguard
shipping along the vital corridor, even at a moment of delicate
diplomacy with Tehran over its nuclear program, experts said.
American warships started "accompanying" US-flagged vessels in the Strait of Hormuz on Thursday in response to two incidents in less than a week in which commercial vessels were coerced or harassed by Iran's Revolutionary Guards.
Defense Secretary Ashton Carter approved the operation and "this is going to continue for an indefinite period of time," Pentagon spokesman Colonel Steven Warren said.
US Central Command, which oversees forces in the Middle East, said it was possible the assistance could be offered to other merchant ships sailing through the maritime chokepoint, a crucial route for the world's oil.
"Our current plans are for accompanying US-flagged ships, although there are discussions with other nations to include their vessels as well," Central Command spokesman Colonel Patrick Ryder told reporters.
Officials did not say what other countries might take up the offer.
The USS Farragut, a guided-missile destroyer, and three coastal patrol craft -- the Thunderbolt, the Firebolt and the Typhoon -- are operating in the area.
The high profile naval presence was a response to the seizure of a Marshall Islands-flagged container vessel the Maersk Tigris on Tuesday by Iran's Revolutionary Guards, who fired warning shots at the ship.
And last week, Pentagon officials said a US-flagged ship was "harassed" by Iranian patrol boats.
- Iran's motives -
Iranian authorities said the Maersk Tigris was confiscated over a commercial dispute. But analysts were skeptical of the explanation and speculated it could be related to Tehran's proxy war with America's Gulf Arab allies in Yemen.
Whatever Tehran's motive, said Alireza Nader, an author and analyst at the RAND Corporation think tank "the US had to demonstrate that the waters of the strait are secure and open to international shipping -- whether Iran intended to send a message or not."
The tension in the Gulf coincides with a diplomatic push by major powers for a deal to curtail Iran's nuclear activities before a June 30 deadline.
The prospect of an accord has alarmed Saudi Arabia and other pro-US allies in the Gulf.
"The rest of the Middle East, Saudi Arabia especially, is worried that if there is a nuclear deal and sanctions are eased on Iran, they (the Iranians) would act more aggressively in the Persian Gulf and beyond," Nader told AFP.The stepped-up naval role in the Gulf is a way to show that the United States "is serious about guaranteeing security in the region despite the nuclear deal."
In Washington, Republican lawmakers said Iran's actions underline the need to closely review the terms of any nuclear deal.
The Strait of Hormuz is often described as the world's most important oil export route. About 30 percent of all oil traded by sea moves through the narrow channel, or about 17 million barrels a day.
At its most narrow point, the strait is 21 miles (33 kilometers) wide, but the width of the navigable shipping lane in each direction is only two miles -- separated by a two-mile buffer zone.
In such a crowded channel, US military strategists have long feared a miscalculation could trigger a conflict that both governments would prefer to avoid. And this time, a potential diplomatic breakthrough is at stake.
Over the past two decades, Iran has invested heavily in a fleet of speed boats and anti-ship mines that could counter America's powerful naval forces in the Gulf.
In 2011, Iran issued threats that it might close the strait in retaliation for tougher international sanctions, prompting a warning from Washington that US forces would be ready to take action to keep shipping lanes open.
In the current case, Iran's rhetoric has been more restrained, and US officials say American warships are not poised to enter Iranian territorial waters.
"I don't think we are necessarily on the verge of confrontation," Nader said.
Israeli vultures in Iraq
August 9, 2012Rehmat's World - The former chief of party in Baghdad for the United States Institute of Peace (USIP), Robert Nathan Boorda, pleaded guilty in the US District Court for the District of Columbia for conspiring to enrich himself by having USIP award a security contract at a fraudulently inflated price in exchange for a purported monthly consulting fee of $20,000 paid by the contractor, announced Assistant Attorney General Lanny A. Breuer of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division.
The USIP is a US funded Zionist think tank dedicated to bringing regime changes in the Muslim world in favour of the Zionist entity. Former assistant secretary of state for East Asian and Pacific affairs, Zionist Jew Richard H. Solomon is the President of USIP since 1993. The list of USIP board members include Daniel Pipes, director Middle East Forum, Robinson West, Laurie S. Fulton, former Sen. Barbara W. Snelling , Mora L. McLean, professors Seymour Martin and Stephen D. Krasner, Lt. Gen. Michael M. Dunn, Peter W. Rodman Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs.
The USIP also runs the notorious anti-Iran website, The Iran Primer. The organization’s recent guest speakers included US defense secretary Leon Panetta and Mohamed Nasheed, former president of Maldives who was forced to resign by mass protests against his pro-USrael policy early this year.
Former Democratic Senator Ernest Frederick Hollings wrote in Charleston daily Post and Courier, May 6, 2004:
“With Iraq no threat, why invade a sovereign country? The answer: President Bush’s policy to secure Israel. Led by Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle and Charles Krauthammer, for years there had been a domino school of thought that the way to guarantee Israel’s security is to spread democracy in the area.”The Jewish groups chastised Hollings for being ‘anti-Semitic.’ Angered by Zionists’ propaganda, Hollings rose in the Senate on May 20, and defended his statement.
“I don’t apologize for this column. I want them to apologize to me for talking about anti-Semitism. President Bush went to war in Iraq to secure our friend Israel, and everybody knows it,” said Hollings.On September 10, 2002, Philip Zelikow, the Zionist Executive Director of the 9/11 Commission, told a crowd at the University of Virginia:
“Why would Iraq attack America or use nuclear weapons against us? I’ll tell you what I think the real threat and actually has been since 1990 – It’s the threat against Israel.”In June 2012, Iraqi Nakhel news agency, reported that Mossad is very active in Iraq behind Jordanian companies. Nakhel’s sources were Iraqi prisoners who were handed over to Israeli interrogators by the US occupation forces – and Israeli daily Ma’ariv. These prisoners said that the Israelis asked them questions about popularity of the Lebanese Hezbollah, Palestinian Hamas Islamic Resistance groups and the role of Iran’s Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) in the region.
Challenging AIPAC and confronting “US interests” (Excerpt)
Electronic IntifadaMay 23, 2011
AIPAC and “US interests”
Challenging AIPAC is part of our larger effort to stop the United States’ financial and military support for corporate investment in and political coverage for Israel. If the goal is to expose and ultimately restrain the role that Israel plays in US foreign policy, focusing exclusively on AIPAC is an insufficient project.
The $60-million-per-year organization certainly represents a lot of financial clout in favor of what are called “Israeli interests.” But it is not AIPAC alone that secures more than $3 billion a year in unconditional military aid and an additional $2.5 billion in other forms of aid and loan guarantees for the State of Israel.
We must look carefully at whose interests in the United States are served by the US-Israel alliance and whose interests are harmed. For only then can we develop an effective strategy to successfully expose and challenge the network of Zionist organizations, the ultra-right wing and religious right, American corporations and the military and foreign policy interests that are served by this alliance.
Moreover, with an understanding that the interests of the vast majority of people and communities in the United States are not served but are, in fact, harmed by this alliance, we can build the movement necessary to form this successful strategy.
Casting AIPAC as a foreign contaminant poisoning US foreign policy and interests is inaccurate. The global power of the American military, government and corporations largely relies on exporting weapons to the Middle East, extracting profits from elevated gas prices, and opening doors for US trade and multi-national corporate profit.
The US strategy for maintaining control in the region has included US military aggression and occupation of countries whose governments challenge American interests; the creation of dependency on US aid and the economic and political alliances with repressive regimes; and building and protecting Israel’s ability to act as a military force to defend these interests.
In turn, Israel has become one of the world’s most powerful militaries, which it uses not only to maintain the occupation of Palestinian and other Arab lands, but also as a threat against its neighbors. As important, it enjoys uncritical support from the US government and its representatives in the United Nations.
US, Israel and the religious right
This mutually beneficial relationship then capitalizes on the interests of the conservative religious right. An extreme but significant and well-funded fundamentalist network supports Israel as part of its belief that this will herald the return of Christ.
One of these groups is the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews, a Chicago-based group that donated as much as $70 million to Israel in 2009 alone, according to published reports.
The US-Israel alliance serves powerful interests and therefore AIPAC and the network of Zionist organizations have powerful allies. But these interests serve a small percentage of the people and communities in the US who are paying the taxes to maintain that alliance. Moreover, the parallel domestic policies in place that protect the interests of this alliance are damaging and repressive to the majority of people in the US.
The domestic practices funded and mobilized by a range of Zionist organizations, including but not limited to AIPAC, include anti-Arab and Islamophobic attacks and unconstitutional prosecution of communities and organizations; anti-immigrant policies and militarized borders; FBI raids and grand jury investigations and indictments; and increased surveillance and policing of communities of color in the United States.
In addition to AIPAC, many right-wing Zionist organizations, such as the Anti-Defamation League and the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA), have a direct interest in fomenting Islamophobia and anti-Arab bigotry in the United States to create ideological cover for American and Israeli militarism and occupation in Muslim and Arab countries.
The PATRIOT Act, related anti-immigrant policies, and the ability to implement unconstitutional FBI raids and grand jury investigations and indictments come directly out of anti-terrorist laws that were instituted in the 1980s.
Now, as then, Zionist think tanks and institutions, such as the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, and the US government partner in drafting and passing this legislation and play a role in the unconstitutional surveillance of individuals, communities and human rights, anti-war, international solidarity and community-based organizations.
A similar situation was uncovered in 1993, when federal agents discovered the California offices of the ADL held thousands personal and confidential files — many obtained illegally from law enforcement officers — on more than 1,300 private individuals and organizations. The ADL admitted to selling some of this illegally-obtained information on anti-apartheid activists to the apartheid South African government.
Security Solutions International, a US-based private security firm which advises the Department of Homeland Security, has a reputation for hiring Israeli military veterans. They have advised over 700 law enforcement agencies since 2004. Their “curriculum” includes a good deal on the threat posed by radical Islam.
The Israeli military itself is contracted by numerous US police forces across the country and by the Coast Guard for training in domestic “population control.” The racialized approach to security that Israeli military personnel have been indoctrinated with translates into dehumanizing people of color here in the US.
More generally, the billions of dollars spent on Israel are taken from desperately needed health care, the revival of our faltering public education system, housing and employment programs, to name a few. These are as central to security for the people of the US as is a shift in our foreign policy.
As has been proven time and again, communities in the US or elsewhere will never be secure with a US foreign and domestic policy driven by the interests of its military, military profiteering, war and occupation, and multi-national corporations.
Leaked document exposes pro-Israel lobby’s manipulation of US public
April 25, 2003
Electronic Intifada - The Electronic Intifada has obtained, and today publishes in full, a document prepared for pro-Israel activists by the public relations firm The Luntz Research Companies and The Israel Project. The document spells out the tactics that Israel and its US advocates should use to maintain support for Israel and its hardline policies.
The document, entitled “Wexner Analysis: Israeli Communication Priorities 2003,” counsels pro-Israel advocates to keep invoking the name of Saddam Hussein, and to stress that Israel “was always behind American efforts to rid the world of this ruthless dictator and liberate their people.” Despite his solid support for Israel and Ariel Sharon, the document warns pro-Israel advocates not to compliment or praise President Bush. At the same time it acknowledges that Yasser Arafat has been a great asset to Israel because “he looks the part” of a “terrorist.” The installation of Mahmoud Abbas as Palestinian prime minister, and potential replacement for Arafat, comes “at the wrong time,” because he has the potential to improve the image of the Palestinians, and that could put the onus on Israel to return to negotiations. The document advises supporters of Israel to appear to affect a “balanced” tone, but admits that in arguing for Israel’s policies, the illegal “settlements are our Achilles heel,” for which there is no good defense.
The document was commissioned by the Wexner Foundation, a private foundation that funds, among other pro-Israel initiatives, “Birthright Israel,” a program that pays for young American Jews to take free trips to Israel. The Israel Project is an initiative of pro-Israel organizations, political consultants and businesspeople. The Luntz Research Companies is a leading public relations and opinion research firm.
Here is some of the key advice the document provides to Israel and its advocates:
- “Iraq colors all. Saddam is your best defense, even if he is dead. The worldview [of] Americans is entirely dominated by developments in Iraq. This is a unique opportunity for Israelis to deliver a message of support and unity at a time of great international anxiety and opposition from some of our European “allies.” For a year - a SOLID YEAR - you should be invoking the name of Saddam Hussein and how Israel was always behind American efforts to rid the world of this ruthless dictator and liberate their people.”
- “The fact that Israel has remained relatively silent for the three months preceding the war and for the three weeks of the war was absolutely the correct strategy - and according to all the polling done, it worked. But as the military conflict comes to a close, it is now time for Israel to lay out its own “road map” for the future which includes unqualified support for America and unqualified commitment to an ongoing war against terrorism.”
- “It DOES NOT HELP when you compliment President Bush. When you want to identify with and align yourself with America, just say it. Don’t use George Bush as a synonym for the United States. Even with the destruction of the Hussein regime and all the positive reactions from the Iraqi people, there still remains about 20% of America that opposes the Iraqi war, and they are overwhelmingly Democrat. That leaves about half the Democrats who support the war even if they don’t support George Bush. You antagonize the latter half unnecessarily every time you compliment the President. Don’t do it.”
- “SECURITY sells. Security has become the key fundamental principle for all Americans. Security is the context by which you should explain Israeli need for loan guarantees and military aid, as well as why Israel can’t just give up land. The settlements are our Achilles heel, and the best response (which is still quite weak) is the need for security that this buffer creates.”
- Download the document now [PDF format, 40K]
No comments:
Post a Comment