A shorter edited version of this article by Justin Raimondo, with extensive additional commentary by Lasha Darkmoon on the Israel-Iran situation
ISRAEL, STOP RIGHT THERE!
“This is the first time since the days of Bush Senior that a major player has reminded that ‘shitty little country’ of its littleness. For months, the Israelis have been going around acting like they are the superpower.” — Justin Raimondo
The President of the United States may not have the cojones to stand up to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, but the chairman of the Joint Chiefs does — and he’s doing it!
When Gen. Martin Dempsey told British reporters he did not want the US to be “complicit” in an Israeli attack on Iran, the boys in Tel Aviv werecrushed.
For weeks Netanyahu & Co. had been telling anyone who would listen that the US would have no choice but to be sucked into a devastating regional war in the event of an Israeli first strike on Tehran: their tone was almost gleeful. In the absence of a direct response from the White House, it looked like the Israelis had us over a barrel: the American giant, it seemed, was helpless in the face of the Israeli pygmy’s deft manipulations.
Then came Dempsey, whose comments put the kibosh on Israel’s blackmail threats — and threw Netanyahu’s government into a panic.
Said Giora Eiland, national security advisor from 2003 to 2006:
Dempsey’s announcement changed something. His stark comments made clear to the world that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was isolated. And that if he opted for war, he would jeopardize all-important ties with the Jewish state’s closest ally.
“Dempsey’s announcement changed something.” That’s the understatement of the year, perhaps the decade. This is the first time since the days of George Herbert Walker Bush that a major player has reminded that “shitty little country” of its littleness. For months, the Israelis have been going around acting like they are the superpower, andwe are a minuscule dependency relying entirely on our patron’s generosity — and endless forbearance.
“From the days of Jabotinski and Ben Gurion, it has always been the ambition of Zionist fanatics to gain possession of a country stretching from the Nile to the Euphrates, known as “Greater Israel”, and to rule the roost here over 100 million Arab slaves. Greater Israel would then have full control over the Suez Canal and the Persian Gulf, in effect holding the entire world — including the United States — to ransom. As it exists right now, roughly the size of New Jersey, Israel can be wiped off the map in five minutes with a single hydrogen bomb from Russia. Israel must therefore be careful not to goad the Russian bear into a fit of wrath — a fit of wrath which the six million Jews left over in America will have reason to regret.” — Lasha Darkmoon
The Israelis don’t like Dempsey much, and after this they’ll like him much less: in their eyes he’s just a tool of the Obama administration.
Even if this is true, and if Gen. Dempsey is speaking out at the behest of the White House, haven’t we come to a sorry pass when the President of the United States cannot speak in his own name and on his own authority about an issue vital to our national security?
What a testament to the power of the Israel Lobby!
Not bad for a pressure group that supposedly doesn’t even exist.
The real problem is that Dempsey is in all probability speaking for himself, and didn’t require any prompting from the White House. Nor is this the first time that the US military has signaled its opposition to striking Iran.
With US military assets in the region vulnerable to an Iranian counterattack, I wouldn’t be surprised if those alleged secret contacts between Washington and Tehran (via European intermediaries) were madeat the military’s insistence: the first instinct of a commander, after all, is to protect his troops.
In effect, the Israelis, by constantly threatening a first strike at Tehran, are holding the tens of thousands of US military personnel in the region hostage — because they are likely to be targets of an Iranian counterattack.
With the White House maintaining radio silence on this issue, Dempsey and the generals had no choice but to go public in order to protect American lives.
US AIRCRAFT CARRIER . . . VULNURABLE TO ATTACK
These impressive Nimitz-class aircraft carriers each come with a full complement of 7–8 supporting ships, 70 or more assorted aircraft, and up to 6000 marines on board. In a 2004 article, military specialist Mark Gaffney, author of Dimona: The Third Temple? (1989), opines: “The US Navy’s largest ships, the massive carriers, have now become floating death traps….In the Gulf’s shallow and confined waters evasive maneuvers will be difficult, at best, and escape impossible….The Gulf will run red with American blood.” (LD)
With back to back deployments, and two wars without a victory — Iraq and Afghanistan — why would the Pentagon want a third war on its hands?
Little wonder they’re beginning to make their opposition known.
Dempsey can’t be the only soldier who resents taking marching orders from Netanyahu.
He can’t be the only soldier to dread a new war started by a belligerent Israel. This has got to be a restraining factor on the Obama administration. It prevents them from capitulating completely to outrageous Israeli demands.
Obama and the Democrats raised the white flag of surrender to the War Party long ago. Well, let’s hope the peaceniks in the Pentagon can hold the fort.
Here is the most recent edition of the Democratic party platform on the question of war with Iran:
“The President is committed to using all instruments of national power to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons…. President Obama believes that a diplomatic outcome remains the best and most enduring solution. At the same time, he has also made clear that the window for diplomacy will not remain open indefinitely and that all options — including military force — remain on the table. But we have an obligation to use the time and space that exists now to put increasing pressure on the Iranian regime to live up to its obligations and rejoin the community of nations, or face the consequences.”
While the document admits that “the Iranians have yet to build a nuclear weapon”, it goes on to assert that they “cannot demonstrate with any credibility that their program is peaceful.”
Iran, it would seem, is guilty until proven innocent.
How can Iran prove it’s NOT going to nuke Israel with the nuclear weapons it MIGHT have in the future IF it decides to get them? (LD)
The standard of proof is impossible.
The Israelis have set a new standard when it comes to Iran. They insist the red line must be the “breakout” capability, as estimated by Tel Aviv’s strategists, of course: that is, the moment when Tehran can theoretically throw together a nuclear weapon of some sort on very short notice.
The catch is that this point exists in theory only: there is no solid evidence the Iranians are pursuing nuclear weapons, and indeed the official US assessment is that they gave up all such attempts in 2003. There have been all sorts of rumors that a new intelligence assessment was in the works. So far it hasn’t surfaced.
The clear implication is that key elements of the intelligence community are refusing to drink the Israeli Kool-Aid: Dempsey’s dissent is the first clear and unequivocal voice raised against the prospect of fighting an unnecessary war for Israel’s sake.
