It’s all to do with “the Rapture”, the idea that chaos in the Middle East followed by the Jewish reconquest of the Holy Lands (and subsequent conversion to Christianity) will fulfill prophecies and set into motion the Second Coming. If, as m.idrees suggests, one of the Israel lobby’s goals is to ensure permanent war in the Middle East, then the Christian fundamentalist lobby is its natural ally.

Also, while I agree that oil politics are as fundamental to understanding conflicts in the Middle East as the Zionist agenda, it’s misleading to talk about a monolithic Big Oil interest group. Pretty much everyone has an oil agenda, and many of the voices we associate most closely with Big Oil are dead against the war in Iraq; stability under Saddam would have been better for business than the current chaos.

For instance. Big Oil. Even though big oil does “not support the war”, this according to their statements and conviently leaked reports, they are in the very soul of the American Establishment. They are the bases that enabled Bush and the Gang (or should I say Cheney and Gang) to take matters into their terms. I would even go so far as to say that if it wasn’t for the Big Oil, there would be no war in Iraq.

The logic for my last statement is based upon your remark that “historical events are never monocausal”. A truth of science.

Without Big Oil Bush and the Gang would never made the great. One might argue that the course of the events might of been the same if Democrats would be in power. However the speculative nature of this arguement does not make it worthy of greater elaboration. The fact is that Bush was sitting at the White House after he lost the election but even so became president when the planes crashed into the WTC. At that point in time the Iraeli lobby was persuing another passions. In fact, was prosecuting Bush’s terrible administration. Israel and the American Jews normally supports of democrats. The old religion conflict. Republicans tend to be too Christian for the Jewish tastes.

In that sense, one could argue that Big Oil had even greater influence in the war in Iraq as the “neocons”. The “neocons” are like rats feeding on the crumbles that falls from the table of American Establishment.

Where the war in Iraq stopped becoming big oil influence and started becoming the Israeli dish is irrelevant. The meal was served.

An object moves in the direction of the resultant of all the forces that act upon this object. The object being US foreign policies towards the middle east and big oil, israeli lobbiests the vectors which act upon this object. Nevertheless, one must recognize that there’re many other vectors acting upon this object. Israeli lobby and big oil as being the only vectors to drive this object is a very grotesque simplification.

Consequently the fact that big oil did not support the invasion of Iraq or a possible invasion of Iran, does not necessarely leaves the “neo-cons” as the hands pulling the strings.

A much more complex system of forces is acting upon this object. A system that way before any attempt of invasion was being especulated already stablished objectives to be conquered. This system is the link between Iraq and Indochina. The link between neocons and you. The inercia of this object was characterized at the founding days of the “western democracies” and it has since then kept course.

In that sense, the atribution of the war in Iraq as a conquest of Israeli lobby is ignoring the very system or object that allowed Israel to exist in the first place.

As Chomsky being a person that called upon the rationalization of this object or system, am I sure he is well aware of the influencial power of the lobby. Nevertheless, giving it this much relevance would undermine his efforts to comprehend the big picture.

As for Cheney, however, I do not view him as an impressionable recipient of Wurmsers’/Ledeen’s/etc advice. Jonathan Cutler’s outstanding article provides a new peek into this, in its quoting of Richard Clarke’s book: Cheney is partly motivated by a negative view of the Saudis’ prospects.
Though we’re disagreed on this point, I thank you for bringing Cutler’s article to our attention. It is superb.

As for the military bases, that’s a whole discussion by itself.

Washington, like any centre of power, has many forces trying to instrumentalize this power in their own respective interests. In order to challenge a given policy, you challenge its source, not abstract ideas.

Re: Cheney, it is not so much what Cheney thinks that is of relevance as what he is being advised. For that the works of his chief Middle-East advisor, David Wurmser, are instructive. If you want to know what Iraq war is all about, read his book. He wrote it in ‘98, and it still remains a blueprint for developments in Iraq.

Yes, the bases would sure be an incentive. Chalmers Johnson has written magnificent books on american empire of bases. In fact, US already had many bases in the Middle East, some of which it has had to vacate in the wake of the disaster in Iraq. But those who trot this argument out rarely mention who is it that lobbies for these bases. We know very well it wasn’t James Baker, Bush Sr. or Scowcroft, who had an opportunity, more than anyone else, to establish them without facing the same level of adverse reaction. Why didn’t they? We also know that the military brass wasn’t too keen on the Iraq war; neither was Dept of State. In the Pentagon, the only support for the war came from Rumsfeld and his handful of political appointees. All neocons, incidentally.

The military industrial complex always has an interest in war, but not in occupations. Its model of a profitable war is Gufl ’91, not the present occupation. It doesn’t make its profits from rifles and body armour. Its profits come from hitec weapons, and programs like the SDI (star wars), missile defense etc.

Dispassionate analysis may lead to more complex answers, but, as was the case with 9/11, the great unwashed seek simple culprits … and AIPAC has provided them with one.

No historical event — not least a war — is monocausal; but that does not mean all causes are of equal salience. When the most significant among them is consistently overlooked, then that is as good as enabling the war.

Israel lobby is not synonmyous with AIPAC. AIPAC is merely one component of lobby that includes AJC, its foreign policy arm, ADL, spying and smearing operation, WINEP, Saban Center (brookings institution), American Enterprise Institute, JINSA, CSP, FDD, etc that formulate foreign policy, CPMJAO which lobbies the executive, CAMERA, MEMRI etc the propaganda organizations, key columnists in major publication. Campus organizations (Hillel, ICC etc), State federations, pressure groups etc.

I agree that when the backlash comes, people will be unable to make the distinction between those gunning for the war, and the larger jewish population which remains opposed to such aggression. And in this respect, I don’t think the Israel Lobby denail of prominent intellectuals helps.

- Chomsky’s perspective has been formed over decades, predating the neo-cons’ contemporary clout. It’s a safe bet that PNAC had little input into the plight of Indochina! Chomsky rightly focuses on the fundamentals which drive such a complex empire. But, his overt omission of the neo-cons’ blatant influence is not readily defendable;

- Cheney! I did bring this up in another post as well as at http://internetdog.org/rah/lettres/DrStrangeLove.html ; Why would Cheney want to do all this for Israel? After all, he is the single most important driver of all this;

- The US bases in Iraq. This prize alone is irresistable to them all, neo-con or not! And this is a point which Chomsky has been making for decades.

But, as I hinted in a response to a Gary Leupp article, http://www.campaigniran.org/casmii/index.php?q=node/1469, when the inevitable failure of this venture becomes manifest, its most visible proponet would stand accused. Dispassionate analysis may lead to more complex answers, but, as was the case with 9/11, the great unwashed seek simple culprits … and AIPAC has provided them with one.

Thanks.

Yes Chomsky’s doom and gloom could have used some zionistitis as well. But still, I don’t think zionists are succeeding in making their case against Iran. An unbombed Iran provides Israel a better “threat” and will thus get them more money, less international legal bindings, more oppressive power and etc. Israelis want to make sure Iran doesn’t make peace with the US, but they won’t want Iran totally subordinated to the US either! Iran’s becoming powerful will make the peace making more attractive to Americans, something that some Arabs like the dude above and the Israelis equally detest.

thanks for good work.

Cheers

From my perconal experience which can only serve as a clue, Iranias hate Arabs more than Israelians! Many indicators refer to the overwhelming unpopuilarity of the Iranian Malalis inside Iran. And that definetly makes perfect sense, as at an ultimate level of analysis,there are no funadamental problems between Israel and Iran.

The Iranians are safe far away from Israel- while they entertain by making childlike threats. They are driven by postmodern new age myths of which the bulk of population are growing weary.

By erecting an illusionary Israeli enemy they tickle the strong nationalistic feelings among the persian barbars. In the mean time, they draw an ace in their game with Imperial powers. For by their pseudo support of Arab causes and palestinians they turn into key players in the middle east after having been spittted out of the region by the real supporters of palestinians Nasser and Sadam.

Non the less to be fair and square i do admit that balanced strong oil rich modern islamic i.e non western by definition country like Iran would severly affect international oil markets. They have a problem with the U.S- no doubt about that. But dont forget that Israel is not a bana republic

Israel destroyed Iraq’s Nuclear reactor in 1981, assassinated el-Mashad killed the German experts working in Egypt in the sixties. the Arab industralisation oragnisation and Egyptian military industries which are far more advanced than the irani’s are subjected to real severe pressure. Remeber the abdel kader helmy case in 1988, the canceled condor 2 project in 1990……….etc.

If Israel had taken najad’s mystical revelations seriously,she wouldnt haver left a single Irani industrial complex intact. And they are capable of doing it. (dont invoke Hisbollah here, because it is totally irrelevent).

I also suggest that you check Mohamed Abtahy’s the deputy of Mohamed Khatemy statments in UAE strategic studies center. He mentioned that invading Bahgdad withgout Iran’s help would have been imposible- while he complained about the American ingratitude.