AIPAC Declares War

AIPAC Declares War


This is the case of a foreign government’s lobby consisting largely of American citizens using its clout to avoid registering as a foreign agent while narrowing the policy options through its friends in Congress and the media in such a way as to make war inevitable. Some might call it treason. Such people should be marginalized before they send off another wave of young Americans to die on their behalf.


Secretary Clinton at 2010 AIPAC Conference

by Philip Giraldi


The American people don’t particularly want a new war in the Middle East, but apparently Congress and Washington’s most powerful lobby do. Thirty-two senators have co-sponsored a resolution that will constrain the White House from adopting any policy vis-à-vis Iran’s “nuclear weapons capability” that amounts to “containment.” The senators include the familiar figures of Joe Lieberman of Connecticut and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, both of whom have persistently called for military action.

They and the other senators have presented their proposal in a particularly deceptive fashion, asserting that they are actually supporting the White House position, which they are not. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta repeated on Feb. 16 that Iran does not have and is not currently building a nuclear device. Before Christmas, he stated clearly that the “red line” for the United States is actual Iranian possession of a nuclear weapon. Even Israel’s intelligence services agree that Iran is not building a bomb. What we are seeing play out in Congress is the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) position, which is that Iran has already crossed a “red line.” The AIPAC argument will no doubt be spelled out in more detail next month at the group’s annual convention in the nation’s capital, a meeting that will be addressed by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and will attract nearly all of Washington’s power brokers.

Rejection of containment in this context and as spelled out in the resolution means that the United States will be forced to go to war if Iran attains the capability to put together a nuclear weapon. Indeed, one might argue that the United States should be at war already, based on the resolution. “Capability” is one of those particularly useful expressions that is extremely elastic and can be interpreted subjectively. By most standards, Iran already has the technical know-how to make a nuclear bomb and has most of the materials on hand to put one together, assuming it can enrich the uranium it possesses to the required level. The Iranians may not, in fact, have the engineering skills to do so, and the task of creating a small, sophisticated device that can be mounted on a ballistic missile is certainly far beyond their current capabilities and probably unachievable given the costs involved and the poor state of their economy.

There are about 50 countries in the world that have the capability to produce a nuclear weapon if they chose to do so, making Iran far from unique but for its persistence as a thorn in the side of Israel and Israel’s powerful lobby in the United States. In other words, Iran does not have to actually produce a nuclear weapon for it to be subject to attack by either Israel or the United States. It only has to continue to be an irritant for Israel.

The new threat of war takes the Bush doctrine of preemption to a whole new level. Some sources in the Obama administration are anonymously warning that war with Iran is nearly certain and are predicting it to break out in late summer. That would be just before the presidential election, a time in which Obama will be seeking desperately to seize the high ground on Israel’s security from whomever the Republicans nominate. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will not even have to mimic Colin Powell by going to the United Nations to seek authorization for an attack using false and fabricated information. Everyone can agree that the mullahs do not actually have a weapon and may not even want to acquire one, but it’s fine to bomb them anyway. The U.S. Senate approves, so off we go to another misadventure in the Middle East

Without a doubt, President Obama is to blame for this shameful state of affairs for showing every sign of weakness whenever confronted by Netanyahu and AIPAC. We should almost certainly expect nothing less than a personal and presidential kowtow at the AIPAC conference next month, a complete surrender that Netanyahu will no doubt receive in his usual ungracious fashion. Even President George W. Bush was able to stand up to the Israelis and forbid an attack on Iran, but now the United States has boxed itself into a corner diplomatically speaking, without any real ability to influence Tel Aviv to cease and desist.

Israel’s prime minister is continuously ramping up the rhetoric, calling Iran a threat to the entire world and suggesting that his country will soon retaliate against recent Iranian-directed terrorist attacks. The bombing in New Delhi and attempted bombings in Tbilisi and Thailand targeting Israelis are a major escalation of the tit-for-tat terrorism between Israel and Iran. Israel has killed four Iranian scientists using Mujahedin-e Khalq agents and possibly relying on intelligence provided by Washington. Israel’s involvement in recruiting Jundallah-Balochi militants using officers pretending to be American CIA, referred to as a false-flag operation, was recently revealed in the U.S. media, though the story quickly disappeared from sight, as is almost invariably the case when dealing with Israel.

But Iran is now signaling that it too has surrogates and is willing to respond in kind. An interesting subplot is the location of two of the attacks in India and Georgia. Iran certainly has covert resources among India’s large Muslim population and also within the significant Azeri minority in Georgia. Israel has been courting India and sees a strategic relationship developing, with the two united against Muslim insurgency. Israel also has a not-so-secret military and intelligence base in Georgia and has recently expanded into nearby Azerbaijan, where it has established an intelligence listening post at an airbase. Iran is surrounded by Israeli operational initiatives and is now signaling that it has had enough and is prepared to strike back. A back-and-forth series of assassinations is particularly dangerous, as it could produce the type of incident that Israel could exploit to preemptively attack, not unlike the fallout from the assassination of a certain archduke in Serbia in 1914. The conflict would undoubtedly ignite the region and inevitably involve the United States, particularly if Congress and the media have any say in the matter.

The United States is powerless to prevent such an outcome in spite of a clear national interest to do so. President Obama has insisted, probably sincerely, that he doesn’t want a war and maintains that he is willing to talk to Iran. But he has nevertheless refused to do so despite several overtures from Tehran to start a dialogue, preferring to deal through surrogates. He has told the Israelis repeatedly that they should not attack Iran, but he keeps insisting that “all options are on the table” in dealing with the mullahs, completely confusing the issue for most observers. What is needed is a clear signal from the White House that the U.S. interest is that there should not be a war and that Washington will not get involved no matter who starts it. If the Israelis know they will have to go it alone, they will not attack. Unfortunately, in an election year, such a position is unlikely because the White House will want to present itself as a close friend of Israel and tough against “rogue” states like Iran.

You might well ask how the United States wound up in such a pickle. Many Americans are beginning to wake up to the fact that it is disgraceful that a small country like Israel should be able to dictate U.S. foreign policy in a key part of the world, but the current situation is actually far worse than that. This is the case of a foreign government’s lobby consisting largely of American citizens using its clout to avoid registering as a foreign agent while narrowing the policy options through its friends in Congress and the media in such a way as to make war inevitable. Some might call it treason. Such people should be denounced and marginalized before they send off another wave of young Americans to die on their behalf while beggaring the rest of us, but instead, senators and representatives will be lining up to cheer them in a month’s time. George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison must be spinning in their graves.

Source : The Council for the National Interest

Hillary Rodham Clinton Remarks at the 2010 AIPAC Policy Conference


AIPAC 101 — What Every American Should Know



Previous articleCraven Liberal Democrats dump human rights champion Jenny Tonge
Next articleBurning of the Book and the Great game
Philip Giraldi is the executive director of the Council for the National Interest and a recognized authority on international security and counterterrorism issues. He is a former DIA and CIA counter-terrorism specialist and military intelligence officer who served eighteen years overseas in Turkey, Italy, Germany, and Spain. He was Chief of Base in Barcelona from 1989 to 1992 designated as the Agency’s senior officer for Olympic Games support. Since 1992 he consulted for a number of Fortune 500 corporate clients. Mr. Giraldi was awarded an MA and PhD from the University of London in European History and holds a Bachelor of Arts with Honors from the University of Chicago. He speaks Spanish, Italian, German, and Turkish.


  1. Fine article. I only question the part about "Some might call it treason." It IS treason, by every definition of the word. But there is something from the Bard that applies here: : “Treason doth never prosper: what's the reason? For if it prosper, none dare call it treason."  And with AIPAC and company, it prospers, it prospers….

  2. Sub:- Obama disappoints mankind at AIPAC 
    Obama has already obliged Israel by his speech at AIPAC on Sunday that – “[We all prefer to resolve this issue diplomatically. Having said that, Iran’s leaders should have no doubt about the resolve of the United States, just as they should not doubt Israel’s sovereign right to make its own decisions about what is required to meet its security needs]”.
    How much confidence Israel will have in diplomatic resolution of this problem by USA in order to stop Iran's nuclear program and how much Israel will prefer Obama's advice to exercise Israel’s sovereign right to make its own decisions about what is required (euphemism for military action) to meet its security needs, is any body's guess
    But Obama will do well to consider the following before deciding to spill the blood of Americans and their Allies in Iran:-
    (1)- No justice loving person can buy Obama’s argument about Iran.  Iran is unnecessarily being harassed and humiliated by USA and its Allies in the name of stopping Iran from having Nukes. Against all the logic & reason, USA & its Allies think that they and some other countries (including Israel, India and Pakistan) have some divine right to posses the nuclear WMDs but countries like Iran, do not have so. As far the past record, USA still remains the only country, which used nukes (in Hiroshima and Nagasaki of Japan). If USA is really interested in mankind getting rid of nuclear WMDs then ‘forced global de-nuclearization through UN’ in a time bound period is still the only solution commensurate with justice.
    (2)- Instead USA and its Allies are making and especially have allowed Israel to make war cries against Iran without realizing that it has already sent shock waves to entire world (including developing countries) which fear, due to this crises, shortage of petroleum oil and steep rise in its price and which is beyond their capacity to bear. Let USA & Allies be under no delusion that remaining mankind will not go against them due to their war in Iran especially when the just remedy, commensurate with justice, of  ‘forced global de-nuclearization through UN’ in a time bound period is still available.
    (3)- The USA & Allies (and Israel) have not taken one more factor into reckoning. Iran is the only country which is not ruled by politician or traditional rulers but by a religious leader of Islam (a religion with traditional rivalries against Jews and Christians including from the days of crusade) the Ayatollah, who is also a constitutional authority as ‘Supreme Leader of Iran’. The USA & Allies ought to understand that there is a fundamental difference between religious leader and other people. Whether rightly or wrongly but religion thinks that it knows the final truth (otherwise who will go to religion). Hence religion never changes its position on various issues. Therefore Ayatollah will rather take (that too in this age of 24×7 television and internet) whole of Iran to even total destruction (by USA & Allies) with him but will never budge on its position on nuclear program of Iran especially when as per Iran it is for civilian purpose.
    (4)- Not withstanding present support of regimes of some Muslim countries to them, if USA & Allies think that global Muslim population (whether Shia or Sunni) will not go against USA & Allies especially in the face of total destruction of such a country as Iran by Jews and Christians – then these governments of USA & Allies are living in their make belief world.
    (5)- Even Russia (which has become much powerful after dismemberment of USSR) will find an opportunity in this scenario and will certainly try to take the revenge against USA & Allies by converting Iran into late-eighties-cold-war-Afghanistan. During crucial stage of cold war USA & Allies used Islam through Mujaheddin in Afghanistan to defeat USSR and now it will be the turn of Russia to use Islam in Iran against USA & Allies.
    (6)- Moreover one more factor Obama should keep in his mind before deciding any course of action about Iran & Syria. In Syria at least Syrians (mainly most of its Sunni Population which is in majority of 74 %) can be used after some defections from the army and after arming the rebels to teeth to fight the Syrian war. But what about Iran? In Iran Obama will have to shed the blood of Americans and their Allies only. Even Muslim regimes of Arab countries may support politically USA & Allies in their war against Iran but they will never provide their armed forces to shed their blood and the blood of Irani Muslims in war against Iran. Even it will not be the Jewish blood which will spill in Iran.
    (7)- Therefore Obama (who, as a Statesman friendly to human rights and justice, aroused the hopes of entire mankind immensely, when he came to White House in 2008) is expected, if not to bother about the hardships of the remaining mankind then at least to respect the blood of Americans and their Allies and should ensure that it is not shed unnecessarily especially when alternative remedy, commensurate with justice, of  ‘forced global de-nuclearization through UN’ in a time bound period is already available.
    (8)- Would Obama enlighten the mankind that if he is so confident about diplomatic (sanctions etc) solution to Iran problem then why he (being the President and supreme commander of armed forces of USA – the leader of uni-polar world) left Israel, through his said Sunday AIPAC speech,  free to exercises its sovereign right to make its own decisions about what is required to meet its security needs, which is nothing but euphemism for military action of Israel against Iran and which (Obama also knows) will leave no country on this earth, un-wounded ?