LobeLog on Facebook LobeLog on Facebook

Message no image

Published on February 22nd, 2012 | by Jim Lobe

3

Read Robert Wright’s post on “AIPAC and the Push Toward War”, Too

Print Friendly and PDF

In addition to Mitchell’s excellent post below, I would strongly recommend Robert Wright’s post entitled “AIPAC and the Push Toward War” on his Atlantic blog today. In that post, he refers to a letter sent by Lieberman, Graham and ten other senators to the White House last week that lays out what I believe is Netanyahu’s and AIPAC‘s optimal position on negotiations with Iran, unadulterated by the need to get queasy, weak-willed Democrats on board. A copy of that letter can be seen here.]

The fact that the letter lays out positions — among them, zero uranium enrichment on Iranian territory under the current regime, ever — that would be dead on arrival in Tehran tells me that the not-so-subtle implication of Wright’s title is correct: AIPAC’s leadership wants war with Iran and opposes any negotiated outcome that falls short of Tehran’s complete abandonment of its nuclear and missile programmes. This observation probably comes as no great surprise to readers of this blog. But I think the letter is useful insofar as it exposes precisely what AIPAC, which is understandably sensitive about being tagged as a warmonger, really wants. How strongly that message is communicated in AIPAC’s upcoming annual convention will be particularly interesting.

There’s an important point that I’ve been wanting to write about for some time and still hope to at some greater length: while the Iraq invasion was an adventure championed by neo-conservatives, as well as aggressive nationalists and the Christian Right, the conventional Israel lobby, led by AIPAC, did not play a leading role in the drive to that war (although Netanyahu, who is very close to neo-conservatives, was quite enthusiastic and even testified before Congress in its favor). What I think happened was that then-Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, who had long asserted that Iran was far more dangerous to Israel that Iraq, was quite skeptical of the idea. But, after becoming convinced that Bush was bound and determined to invade, he got on the bandwagon and told AIPAC to do the same in order to preserve his close ties with and influence on Bush. But AIPAC and other major lobby actors never fought for the war with the nearly same conviction and enthusiasm as the neo-cons.

With respect to Iran, I think we see a different dynamic, one in which the main impetus for war is coming from the political leadership of Israel and the lobby here, with the neo-cons acting for now as the most visible point of the spear. And because the lobby enjoys much more influence with Democrats than the neo-cons ever have, it’s a significantly more formidable force, as recent votes in Congress make clear.

While neo-conservatives and the lobby overlap and often share common goals, they do not always agree. Neo-cons typically think they know better than the Israeli government (and the U.S. government, of course) what is in its interests, while organizations like AIPAC tend to defer more (however reluctantly, given the increasingly right-wing sympathies of its leadership) to Jerusalem’s judgment. You can see this in the contrasting attitudes of the two groups to the situation in Syria: the neo-cons are united, as they have been for years, in wanting to see Assad deposed by any means necessary. (Remember that the 1996 “Clean Break” was aimed ultimately at Syria, not Iraq. AIPAC, while it clearly prefers such an outcome, seems much less committed to it, no doubt reflecting the ambivalence on the issue that exists in Jerusalem.

Print Friendly and PDF

About the Author

avatar

The Washington Bureau Chief of the international news agency, Inter Press Service, Jim Lobe is best known for his coverage of U.S. foreign policy.



3 Responses to Read Robert Wright’s post on “AIPAC and the Push Toward War”, Too

  1. avatar Anar Green says:

    Yesterday, Chris Hayes said, “Sometimes I think this can’t _possibly_ be happening!” It _can_ if you did not understand why the first one (Iraq) happened.

    The left, and assorted in-print literati, characteristically miss the point when, as in Robert Wright’s article, they wallow in details of nuclear he-said-she-said! They’ve been at this for a decade, and still debate the minutiae of an attack, with a collocutor who is foaming at the mouth. (Rather like Obama’s style!) The question that has to be asked, instead, is: Is Israel a rational actor?

    Jim Lobe’s analysis cuts closer. There is definitely a substantive and substantial difference between the behaviours of AIPAC and the neo-cons, then and now. But the distinction is almost academic at this point; the media has turned the target into a monster–an essential step before bombing begins.

  2. Jim Lobe made an excellent presentation of how the move to war on Iran differed from the build up for the US attack on Iraq in regard to the involvement of the neocons, Israel, and the conventional Israel lobby.

    Jim Lobe’s contention that “Neo-cons typically think they know better than the Israeli government” is also an illuminating point. Nonetheless, as I point out in my book, “The Transparent Cabal,” the neocons’ positions approximate the thinking of the hard-line Likudniks (their Middle East reconfiguration agenda is similar to the position articulated by Oded Yinon in 1982). Actual Israeli governments, even right-wing ones, are understandably fearful of taking all the risks inherent in this agenda.

    But I differ somewhat with Jim Lobe’s view that Sharon “was quite skeptical” of the neocons’ plan to attack Iraq. Sharon and most Israeli strategists had held that Iran was far more dangerous to Israel than Iraq. But the neocons saw attacking Iraq as merely the first step to attacking Iran and Israel’s other enemies as part of the reconfiguration of the entire Middle East.

    Granted, Sharon likely would have preferred an initial attack on Iran, but he certainly would not have allowed his government to support the neocon policy (support that was illustrated by individual statements by various government officials, including Sharon himself, and the provision of bogus intelligence to serve as war propaganda) in order to “preserve his close ties with and influence on Bush” if he believed that such an attack on Iraq would be detrimental to Israel. It is most likely that Sharon may not have felt that a US attack on Iraq was the best strategy, but that it was better than not attacking any of Israel’s enemies, which was the only real alternative.

  3. avatar eugen says:

    Excellent, as always. A small quibble: I believe that Tel Aviv, not Jerusalem, is the internationally recognized capital of Israel

Back to Top ↑