Who is Chas Freeman and why should we care about what's happening to him?

Hat tip: The Daily Dish

I've been reading about the case of Chas Freeman, who has been nominated for National Intellgence Council Chief. Seems as if Mr. Freeman has been targeted by the Israeli Lobby for being, agasp, a person not falling in line with everything pro-Israel.

Mr. Freeman from a speech in 2007:

In a fall 2007 speech to the Pacific Council on International Policy Freeman said:


"In retrospect, Al Qaeda has played us with the finesse of a matador exhausting a great bull by guiding it into unproductive lunges at the void behind his cape. By invading Iraq, we transformed an intervention in Afghanistan most Muslims had supported into what looks to them like a wider war against Islam. We destroyed the Iraqi state and catalyzed anarchy, sectarian violence, terrorism, and civil war in that country. Meanwhile, we embraced Israel’s enemies as our own; they responded by equating Americans with Israelis as their enemies. We abandoned the role of Middle East peacemaker to back Israel’s efforts to pacify its captive and increasingly ghettoized Arab populations. We wring our hands while sitting on them as the Jewish state continues to seize ever more Arab land for its colonists."

I agree with Andrew Sullivan. If the man has FINANCIAL problems, fine. I don't have a qualm with him being jetted because of financial dealings. But, that doesn't seem to be what's happening here. He's being villified by the neo-cons, who shouldn't be able to say SHIT for what they've put this country through in the past 8 years, and the Israeli lobby. When is this country going to begin doing foreign policy for what's best for US, and not what's best for Israel? Hell no, I don't think they're one in the same. We give them, what, 3 billion dollars a year (conservative estimate- some put it as high as 5.5 billion), and we don't get to tell them what to use it for? Why isn't the foreign aid to Israel put in the same box as that 'aid' given to Africa?

Congress Will Soon Pass An Iran War Resolution

You may have heard about the massive Isreali wargames conducted earlier this month that were aimed at Iran. But you may not be aware of the Iran War Resolution that is close to a vote in Congress. The Resolution (#362) will ask President Bush to impose a full Naval Blockade on Iran, including the blocking of gasoline imports. Now imagine if a Country decided that it would block imports of gasoline into the U.S.

Sure, Iran has plenty of oil, but it actually imports much of its gasoline, because the country does not refine enough oil for its own domestic fuel needs. Such a blockade would not be backed by the UN Security Council and would be an act of war. It would practically destroy the Iranian economy, and impact its Trade with other Countries. This (by design) would force the Iranian military to take action in response- exactly what the U.S. wants.

This idiotic legislation is being pushed by AIPAC, Israels most powerful lobbying group. This is probably the most powerful lobbying group in Washington. The Bill is supported by both the House and Senate, and appears to be bi-partisan. Barack Obama was quick to throw in his support. He jumped on the bandwagon long ago, promising AIPAC that he would put the interests of Israel over the interests of the United States. This is one of the main problems with the Democratic Party - it's foreign policy, especially as it relates to Israel. The Democrats are essentially as hawkish as the Republicans. Foreign policy is one of the areas where Democrats and Republicans read from the same script. This is why I often refer to members of Congress as the "Republicrats". It is also one of the main reasons why I cannot fully endorse a candidate like Barack Obama. I can never fully embrace him as a real change candidate- NEVER. The way that he so eagerly co-signs with the imperialist pro-war U.S. policies of the past puts his change platform in doubt. On one hand he criticizes Bush for warmongering, then he reveals that he pretty much believes in the same kind of "Truman Doctrine" imperialism that has shaped U.S. Foreign policy for the past 50+ years; the same imperialism that drives the Bush Administration.

A few weeks ago I wrote about how ridiculous an attack on Iran would be. If the U.S. and Israel wanted to strengthen the Iranian government, they would launch an attack. An attack would be a gift to the Iranian regime. And such an attack would not even destroy all of Iran's nuclear facilities. So instead of solving a problem, the U.S. and Israel will only make matters far worse.

The U.S. and Israel are moving in the same familiar pattern here as they did leading up to the invasion of Iraq. They are both listening to Iranian exile groups who have a political agenda, just like they did before the Iraq disaster. The Iraqi exile groups turned out to be frauds, who admitted that they provided false information about Iraq's non-existent Weapons of Mass Destruction. But here we are yet again.

An attack on Iran would be a disaster, and would accomplish nothing. Even the IAEA Chief, Mohamed ElBaradei, stated that an attack would be a disaster for the region and would threaten World Peace and would impede his work. An attack on Iran could easily drag other nations into a much wider confrontation. Russia, for example, has invested quite a lot in Iran over the past few years, and has not only built one nuclear facility, but is in the process of building more. The two Countries also have several other military and business Trade links.

The U.S. wants the World to believe that Iran is doing something that is against international law with its nuclear research. That is a lie! The NPT agreement allows for peaceful civilian use of nuclear technology. That includes research of various kinds. What is tricky is that some of the activities have both civilian or military applications. Not even the IAEA is close to saying that Iran is making a nuclear bomb. And even if they were, that would not be illegal, although it would violate their previous NPT agreement. The NPT, however, is a voluntary agreement, not a compulsory agreement. There is no UN mandate that says anything about a country being attacked if they violate NPT or CTBT agreements. When the NPT was created, there were specific provisions included that allowed signatory States the right to the peaceful use of nuclear technology. The real issue behind this nonsensical game that the U.S. is playing is the fact that Iran is a Muslim State and it does not want it to even have the technology or the ability to possibly make a bomb. Iran doesn't have to be close to actually making a nuclear weapon in order to be targeted. It is being targeted simply for doing research and for developing its own nuclear technology, peaceful or not (all legal under international law).

I am now more convinced than ever that the U.S. (or through its proxy & 51st State Israel) is headed for a military confrontation with Iran - an event that could lead to regional war. While I don't think anything will take place in the immediate future (within the next few weeks or months), everything is pointing towards a military conflict in the longterm. The constant hawkish tone of Barack Obama gives me the feeling that he will be a lapdog for AIPAC and will allow Israel to make his foreign policy decisions, even if those decisions are not in my best interests as an American. If Bush doesn't launch this idiotic war, the next President likely will, no matter who wins in November. The major candidates are like two apples from the same poisonous tree, both heavily influenced by the Israel lobby.

You think gas prices are high right now? Wait until the war with Iran begins. You will be looking at gas prices of $6.00 - $7.00 per gallon or more. And that's not the only thing that you will need to worry about.

War Drums Beating Again For Iran Attack?

Did Israel let the Cat out of the bag about the Bush Administrations plans for Iran?

I hope this is just more fluff, designed to get Irans attention. I believe that the window of opportunity for an attack against Iran has passed. The latest optimal time would have been late last year or earlier this year. It just doesn't make sense to launch an attack at this point. We are well into an election year. Such a move would have unclear, but serious consequences, both domestically and internationally. Domestically, it could either harm the Republican candidate, or increase Republican support (which tends to happen for the office holders Party in wartime). But an increase in support for Bush or McCain is very unlikely in this case.

In addition, the U.S., being tied up in Iraq, does not have enough troops on standby to blunt an aggressive Iranian counter-attack, once airstrikes commence. So an attack under these conditions would be a case of outright recklessness and stupidity. But that's nothing new for Bush and the Republicans. The U.S. can't hold ground in Iraq with 150,000 troops, and the neocons want to attack a Country that is three times the size and population of Iraq? The U.S. would need 200,000 to perhaps 250,000 troops just to contain a counter-attack and push the Iranians back (That's on a good day).

Internationally, the consequences could be grave. Iran would almost certainly use Iraq and Lebanon as fronts in any confrontation. It would put U.S. troops and allies at serious risk. Any conflict could also draw in regional powers like Russia, Israel, etc. Such a conflict could spread quickly like a wildfire....with no one being able to control it. This is a very bad environment to fight a war in because there are so many flashpoints.... no clear red lines anywhere....all the red lines are blurred.

This would also be a stupid time for an attack considering that the Iranian government is domestically unpopular right now. Attacking Iran would be a gift for the Iranian leadership because it would rally their people to support them (and they will do so by the millions). It would be a lot better to talk to Iran, re-establish UN monitoring of nuclear facilities, provide a boost to nuclear negotiations (with UN leadership) and quietly work with the people of Iran. The same revolution that brought the Mullahs to power is the same revolution that could remove them. Why anger the Iranian people (many of whom are pro-Western....not so much in terms of politics, but in terms of culture). Ordinary Iranians are this Country's greatest asset.

Lastly, I see no signs of any immediate confrontation. There are no Aircraft Carriers steaming towards the Persian Gulf in unusually large numbers. A serious attack would require at least 3-4 Carrier battle groups, considering that Iran has a considerable military capability (as compared to other countries in the region). Keep in mind that the U.S. used 6 Carrier battle groups against Iraq in 1991...and Iran is a nation 3 times the size of Iraq, in land and in population size...and has a military capability that is larger than what Saddam Hussein had at that time.
It should also be noted that few Countries, if any, will be willing to help the U.S. in any kind of Bush neocon military adventure in Iran.

The problem with the above is that it is a common sense assessment. The Bush administration doesn't operate under any common sense assumptions. Bush & Co. has always done things that simply don't make sense in the real world. We are not dealing with normal people. That's what is scary.

Discussion About the Impact of the Israel Lobby On American Politics

Hear a discussion with the authors of a new book entitled- The Israel Lobby & U.S. Foreign Policy. The Authors, John Mearsheimer & Stephen Walt, are on target with their analysis regarding how U.S. foreign policy is being held hostage by Israel. The U.S. sides with Israel (automatically in most cases) even at the expense of our own best interests.

Anyone who even questions the U.S. relationship with Israel, or raises concerns about the Israel Lobby in this Country (AIPAC for example) is labeled anti-semitic.
The authors also discuss how American politicians, particularly the Presidential candidates, are afraid of the Israel Lobby.

Interesting discussion.

Listen Here (choose audio option at top of page)

_________________

Related Links

Website for Book

Analysis of Authors Positions