An important new research paper by two distinguished professors, entitled
"The Israel Lobby And U.S. Foreign Policy," was just published by Harvard
University's John F. Kennedy School of Government. [1] The paper's three main
conclusions are that:
(1) the pro-Israel lobby inside the U.S. has managed to convince American
lawmakers, officials, and U.S. public opinion to support Israel "no matter what,"
even though this support runs counter to America's own national interests;
(2) pro-Israel officials inside the Bush administration - namely, neocons
Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith and David Wurmser - were behind the push for war
with Iraq, and pro-Israel lobbying groups were a driving force in encouraging
the Bushites to invade Iraq; and
(3) the pro-Israel lobby actively suppresses American public debate about
U.S. Middle East policy by disingenuously accusing everyone who disagrees with
their pro-Israel positions of being "anti-Semitic." [2]
The co-authors of this 81-page research paper are Harvard University Professor of International Relations Stephen Walt and University of Chicago Professor
of Political Science John Mearsheimer. Their synopsis states that "The
centerpiece of U.S. Middle East policy is its intimate relationship with Israel.
Though often justified as reflecting shared strategic interests or compelling
moral imperatives, the U.S. commitment to Israel is primarily due to the
activities of the 'Israel Lobby.' This paper describes the various activities that
pro-Israel groups have undertaken in order to shift U.S. foreign policy in a
pro-Israel direction." [3]
Not surprisingly, the Jerusalem Post reports that their research paper has "sparked an instant controversy" in Israel. [4] However, we shouldn't judge it
on the basis of media-driven rumors, but rather should read this research paper
for ourselves. People who are pressed for time should read the shorter
version that was conveniently published online by the London Review of Books. [5]
Why bother to read this paper at all? Its topic is extremely important right
now because pro-Israel lobbying groups like AIPAC have been advocating, and
the Bush administration has been threatening, yet another U.S. war of
aggression, this time against Iran. [6]
Furthermore, it verifies that Israel has far too much influence over our
foreign policy. The Israelis should be treated like any other nation (neither
better nor worse) - but certainly not as if they were the USA's 51st state.
Our morally-blind ties to Israel understandably ruffles many a feather in the
Arab world. As a wise friend once said, "This will only change when the
pro-Arab lobby is as strong as the pro-Israel lobby. Until then, both our Dems and
Repubs will remain the bought-and-paid-for vassals of the pro-Israel lobby."
Finally, this paper raises a perfectly valid geostrategic question, upon
which the American public should hold a well-informed and fair-minded nationwide
debate: Will a U.S. war of aggression against Iran serve America's national
interests in the Middle East, or will it be counterproductive for every nation
except Israel?
________________________________________________________________
ENDNOTES:
[1] Professors John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt's March 2006 HU John
F. Kennedy School of Government research paper, "The Israel Lobby And U.S.
Foreign Policy": http://ksgnotes1.harvard.edu/Research/wpaper.nsf/rwp/RWP06-011
[2] Terry Walz's 3-17-06 CNI article, "Professors Take On Israel Lobby":
http://www.rescuemideastpolicy.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=artic
le&sid=220&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0
[3] John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt's March 2006 Harvard University research paper, "The Israel Lobby And US Foreign Policy" [You can download their 81-page paper from North America, Europe or Asia at the following SSRN webpage.]: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=891198
[4] Nathan Guttman's 3-19-06 Jerusalem Post article, "Harvard Study: AIPAC Makes US Act Against its Own Interests" [Criticizes the Harvard study's chief conclusions.]: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1139395630337&pagename=JPost%2FJPAr
ticle%2FShowFul
[5] Professors John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt's 3-23-06 London Review of Books essay, "The Israel Lobby" [This is a shorter version of their Harvard research paper.]: http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/print/mear01_.html
[6] Fourteen recent article will help you to think clearly about Iran and the USA:
A. Scott Bohlinger's 3-18-06 Asian Times essay, "America's Options For Iran" [This knowledgeable must-read analysis contends that the US can achieve a "win-win" outcome with Iran. While sanctions and military strikes would be counterproductive, US support for an Iranian civilian nuclear capability could produce positive results for both the US and Iran.]: http://atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HC18Ak04.html
B. James Klurfeld's 3-17-06 CD/Newsday essay, "Those War Drums Have A Familiar Beat: Cheney's Tough Talk on Iran And An Updated Report On Security Sound Eerily Like The Run-Up to Iraq Invasion" [It's important to understand the difference between a preventive attack and a pre-emptive attack -- although the Bush administration seems to want to confuse the two. In international law, a pre-emptive attack is when someone already has his hand on a gun and is about to fire at you, and you beat him to the draw, firing first. That's understandable and justifiable. A preventive attack is when there's no imminent danger, but you want to keep the threat from even developing. That's what the Bush administration did in Iraq. That's what it is threatening to do with Iran now.]: http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0317-25.htm
C. William Buckley's 3-17-06 NR essay, "Hitting Iran" ["If Iran gets the
bomb, the USA would be critically affected, but other nations would be more
directly affected, and the question repeats itself: Why do they not take on the
responsibility of intervening in Iran?" Buckley refers not to Israel, but to
Saudi Arabia, Turkey, France and Germany. However, his analysis is dishonest
because: (a) his three reasons why Israel couldn't do the job also apply to
France and Germany; (b) he ignores the fact that a ground invasion would be
necessary; (c) he assumes the very issue for which there is no evidence - namely,
the unproven allegation that Tehran is seeking weaponized nukes in addition to
civilian nuclear energy; and (d) even if that nonexistent ambition were true,
every serious analyst says it would take Iran 10 years to produce its first
nuke.]: http://www.nationalreview.com/buckley/wfb200603171430.asp
D. Ingmar Lee's 3-17-06 CC essay, "Are You About To Nuke Iran?" [All
indications are that the Bush neocon cabal has been setting up an invasion of
Iran. Americans must demand that Mr. Bush promptly answer six direct questions
about war with Iran.]: http://www.countercurrents.org/lee170306.htm
E. Robert Dreyfuss' 3-15-06 CC essay, "Déjà Vu All Over Iran," [In the
past few weeks, we've seen the Bush administration create a brand-new Office of
Iranian Affairs at the State Department. That looks suspiciously like the
Department of Defense's earlier creation of the Iraq war planning office in the
Pentagon, called the "Office of Special Plans." No word yet on whether the DOD
is creating a parallel Iran war planning office called "Office of Special
Plans," but it can't be far behind. So that's déjà vu, for sure.]:
http://www.countercurrents.org/iran-dreyfuss150306.htm
F. Bernard Weiner's 3-15-06 CC essay, "The Middle East Muddle: Is Peace
Still Possible?" [The run-up to the impending war against Iran - and make no
mistake, the foundations are being laid daily by the Bush Administration -
bears a remarkable resemblance to the propaganda barrage before the U.S. attacked
Iraq.]: http://www.countercurrents.org/weiner150306.htm
G. Mike Whitney's 3-15-06 CC essay, "Iran: Where Do We Go From Here?"
[The Bush administration knew from the beginning that the UN Security Council
would not support economic sanctions or military action. The intention was
simply to increase suspicion about Iran's nuclear programs and mobilize public
support for a war.]:
http://www.countercurrents.org/iran-whitney150306.htm
H. Tom Porteous' 3-13-06 TP essay, "It's Regime Change, Again" [The Bush
administration is hugely miscalculating with Iran, and unnecessarily moving
toward a war that can only alienate the Islamic world and lead to massive
negative consequences.]: http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2006/03/10/its_regime_change_again.php
I. Matthew Rothschild's 3-12-06 CD/TP essay, "Cooler Heads Needed in
Iran" [Also needed in the USA, where the Bush administration has already begun
its propaganda campaign for war.]:
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0312-32.htm
J. Mike Whitney's 3-11-06 CC essay, "The 48-Hour Media Blitz For War
With Iran" [During the past 48 hours, propagandistic statements about the
"impending danger" from Iran were issued by Bush, Cheney, Rice, Bolton, Burns,
Congress, and Israel. It's not a coincidence. They've begun their propaganda
campaign for the next war.]:
http://www.countercurrents.org/whitney110306.htm
K. Chris Cook's 3-11-06 CC essay, "What The Iran 'Nuclear Issue' Is
Really About" [The International Petroleum Exchange's former director says the
USA's threatened invasion of Iran has nothing to do with nuclear weapons, and
everything to do with the Bush administration's determination to use force of
arms to maintain dollar dominance and energy security. Despite the myth, Iran's
new oil bourse does NOT provide a legitimate basis for a US invasion. By the
way, a "bourse" is a stock market in a non-English speaking country.]: http://www.countercurrents.org/iran-cook110306.htm
L. Linda Heard's 3-9-06 OnlineJournal essay, "Iran: More Jaw And Less War" [Diplomacy is the better alternative to war, but diplomacy's in short supply where the USA and Iran are concerned. (One minor error requires correction: Rep. John Murtha is a Dem, not a Republican).]: http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_581.shtml
M. Guardian Unlimited's 3-4-06 OEN/GU editorial, "Bush And The Bomb"
[Last-ditch nuclear talks between Iran and the EU's "Big Three" did not go well,
breaking up shortly after they began in Vienna. That was not surprising
because there had been an impasse in negotiations for weeks. But it was more than
just an unfortunate coincidence that the session was held one day after George
W. Bush struck a landmark deal allowing India to develop peaceful nuclear
energy outside of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), the world's most
important legal barrier to the spread of nuclear weapons. This smacks of double
standards that will make it hard to hold the line on this issue. And it gives
some substance to the charge, voiced by President Ahmadinejad, that opposition
to Iran's nuclear ambitions - which he claims are for peaceful civilian energy
- is politically motivated. Now this potentially disastrous confrontation will
move to the UN Security Council.]: http://www.guardian.co.uk/leaders/story/0,,1723276,00.html
N. Michel Chossudovsky's 2-22-06 GlobalResearch.ca essay, "Is The Bush
Administration Planning A Nuclear Holocaust? Will The US Launch 'Mini-Nukes'
Against Iran In Retaliation For Tehran's 'Non-Compliance'?" [This University of
Ottawa Economics Professor's well-documented essay addresses the likelihood
that the US will use nukes in Iran. His short answers to the titular questions
are "yes" and "yes." Also see his 2-17-06 GR essay, "The Dangers Of A Middle
East Nuclear War. New Pentagon Doctrine: Mini-Nukes Are 'Safe For The
Surrounding Civilian Population'."]: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&
code=20060222&articleId=2032
_____________________________________________________________
NOTE TO THE READER:
Please forward Joe American's mini-essay to your friends, relatives and
colleagues!
