Monday, 17 August 2015

A turning point in US - Israeli relations!

On 5 August 2015, President Barack Obama explained the reasoning behind the recent nuclear deal with Iran at American University's School of International Service in Washington, D.C.
"You’re going to hear a lot of arguments against this deal, backed by tens of millions of dollars in advertising. And if the rhetoric in these ads, and the accompanying commentary, sounds familiar, it should, for many of the same people who argued for the war in Iraq are now making the case against the Iran nuclear deal."
Many of the same people?

I wonder who they could be?

“Now, when I ran for President eight years ago as a candidate who had opposed the decision to go to war in Iraq, I said that America didn’t just have to end that war, we had to end the mindset that got us there in the first place."
Ah, that bloodthirsty mindset.

Project for a New American Century
"It was a mindset characterized by a preference for military action over diplomacy; a mindset that put a premium on unilateral US action over the painstaking work of building international consensus; a mindset that exaggerated threats beyond what the intelligence supported."
Tony Blair exaggerated his way to a vast fortune via 'mindset' gratitude with his '45 minute' thing and much else.
Stanley Heller
"Leaders did not level with the American people about the costs of war, insisting that we could easily impose our will on a part of the world with a profoundly different culture and history. And, of course, those calling for war labelled themselves strong and decisive, while dismissing those who disagreed as weak, even appeasers of a malevolent adversary.”
Behold a behind-the-scenes leader - chickenhawk, Richard Perle:

Joe Klein
“More than a decade later, we still live with the consequences of the decision to invade Iraq. Our troops achieved every mission they were given. But thousands of lives were lost, tens of thousands wounded. That doesn’t count the lives lost among Iraqis. Nearly a trillion dollars was spent."
I think that should be trillions, Barack.

Carl Bernstein
"Today, Iraq remains gripped by sectarian conflict, and the emergence of al Qaeda in Iraq has now evolved into ISIL."
ISIS didn't just arrive on the scene by magic.

BIG black mark against you here, Barack. You were the guy in charge at the time.

"And ironically, the single greatest beneficiary in the region of that war was the Islamic Republic of Iran, which saw its strategic position strengthened by the removal of its long-standing enemy, Saddam Hussein."
Poor, old Saddam. 

Bad man though he was, he was America's bad man in the region for much of his time in power. Put not your faith in Princes, said Machiavelli, many centuries ago.

Things don't change much, do they?

"The choice we face is ultimately between diplomacy or some form of war – maybe not tomorrow, maybe not three months from now, but soon.”
War is coming, to us as well. 

Though Barack might have postponed it for a bit with this surprisingly off-message  intervention.

"There are opponents of this deal who accept the choice of war. In fact, they argue that surgical strikes against Iran’s facilities will be quick and painless."

Painless for the usual suspects, not for countless non-combatant civilians. 
"But if we’ve learned anything from the last decade, it’s that wars in general and wars in the Middle East in particular are anything but simple. The only certainty in war is human suffering, uncertain costs, unintended consequences."
Events, dear boy, events!

This was just such an 'event.' Such a bold, anti-Israeli stance from the US President could not have been expected.
"We can also be sure that the Americans who bear the heaviest burden are the less than 1 percent of us, the outstanding men and women who serve in uniform, and not those of us who send them to war."
The warmongers of the modern age never put their own lives on the line. In fact, most of them managed to wangle a free pass when they were of an age to do so. (See Chickenhawks above)

“On the other hand, I do think it’s important to acknowledge another, more understandable motivation behind the opposition to this deal... and that is a sincere affinity for our friend and ally, Israel …”
Israel.. Zion... the Jews. Tell me the old, old story.

Henry Makow
“I recognize that Prime Minister Netanyahu disagrees – disagrees strongly..."
Oh, yes. Benny loves a good war. 

Especially the war is fought for Israel and others are doing the fighting and dying.

"I do not doubt his sincerity. But I believe he is wrong."
Psychopaths often are, Barack.

"I believe the facts support this deal. I believe they are in America’s interest and Israel’s interest."
The 'facts' have always supported the fettering of a bloodthirsty elite. 

And such a policy would certainly be in the interest of the rest of humanity, that's for sure.

What do I think? I think Barack Obama is the first US President in a long, long time, to put two fingers up at Israel. For which uniquely courageous behaviour he should be loudly applauded by all who want the bad guys marginalised.

What else do I think?

I think the President should watch his back.

And if you think I'm reading the runes wrongly, check out what Barak Ravid had to say in the 6 August 2015 edition of the Israeli daily, Haaretz. 

Titling his article, 'Obama isolates Netanyahu as Head of Warmongers,' he opined:
"In a speech liable to be seen as a turning point in U.S.-Israeli relations, the President clarified that the two countries' security interests are not always the same... 
For nearly an hour he laid out his doctrine on behalf of the agreement and tried to negate and undermine the arguments of those who oppose it, one by one. He was addressing two main groups: The Democratic members of Congress and their voters in the center and liberal left. 
He used some scare tactics, warning against Republican lobbyists and organizations funnelling tens of millions of dollars into a campaign against the agreement... Another demon conjured up by Obama was former President George W. Bush. He portrayed him as having created the Iranian problem when he launched the war against Iraq. When Bush took office, Obama said, Iran didn’t have a single centrifuge; when he left the White House they had thousands. 
The most worrisome part of Obama’s address was his reference to the Israeli government’s opposition to the nuclear agreement. What he said is liable to be seen in the not-so-distant future as A REAL TURNING POINT IN THE STRATEGIC RELATIONS BETWEEN JERUSALEM AND WASHINGTON. 
Obama marked Netanyahu not as a major ally, but as HIS GREATEST POLITICAL RIVAL... At times you could hear Obama’s disdain for Netanyahu... Obama isolated Netanyahu, portrayed him and his government as THE ONLY ONE IN THE WORLD WHO OPPOSES THE AGREEMENT and positioned him as the HEAD OF THE WARMONGERING CAMP that rejects any diplomatic compromise of any kind, under any circumstances. 
The attempt by Netanyahu to scuttle the nuclear agreement, Obama wanted to say, is a cousin to the campaign conducted by those who supported the war in Iraq in 2003. It’s doubtful there is any group of people more disliked by the American public...
What should disturb the sleep of every Israeli is the fact that Netanyahu’s battle against the nuclear agreement has pushed Obama into a situation in which he must distinguish between the security interests of the United States and those of Israel, and clarify that they are not necessarily the same... 
Netanyahu crossed red lines in his battle against the Iran deal, when he grossly intervened in domestic American politics and tried to present himself as someone who knows America’s interests better that the President of the United States...
'Disastrous,' ladies and gentlemen. 

Straight from the horse's mouth. Is this 'a real turning point,' we wonder? Is an American President about to 'distinguish between the security interests of the United States and those of Israel' for the first time in half a century? In my opinion, anything 'disastrous' for Netanyahu and the Neocons is liable to be very good indeed for the rest of us. And even if it doesn't work out that way, we get to have a sneaky, behind-the-hand titter at the expense of a lot of very nasty people indeed.

Lost of momentary schadenfreude for the warmongered multitudes while it lasts.

Watch your back, Mr President.

This exposition was prompted by 'The Liberation of US Foreign Policy,' subtitled, 'The Iran deal is the Israel lobby’s Armageddon,' a superbly detailed and forensic essay by Justin Raimondo, first seen at the web site. 

You should read it.

To conclude, I'll pinch a bit from Justin:
"It’s the very same people, the Kristols, the Kagans, the Krauthammers and the rest of that Jacobin 'conservative' crowd, who lied us into war and who are now clamouring for yet another bloodbath in the Middle East. One could only stand and cheer as the President called out the Neocons." 
The Kristols, the Kagans and Charles Krauthammer are Jewish. The Jacobin conservatives I'll leave to your imagination. As for the Neocons, see Ari Shavit and Carl Bernstein.

The critics cited above, Shavit, Bernstein, Stanley Heller, Joe Klein, James Rosen, Michael Kinsley and Henry Makow, are all, themselves, Jewish.

No comments:

Post a Comment