Israel
and the Clash of Civilisations, by Jonathan Cook
"a new
millennium Great Game unfolds."
"Control of oil could be secured on the same terms as Israeli regional
hegemony: by spreading instability across the Middle East"
Cook considers why Israel
and Washington chose this agenda despite the risks:
-- by controlling Iran
and Iraq, oil production can be increased and prices brought down to
a desired level;
-- Israel's rivals will
be economically and politically crippled as will Palestinians in the
Territories and inside Israel;
-- Gulf states will
also be weakened, including Saudi Arabia; and one major
out-of-region goal may be achieved: containing China by
controlling its main oil source; it may also be easier
to dismember the country the way the Soviet Union was dissolved.
Israel And The Clash Of
Civilisations
by Jonathan Cook
Reviewed by Stephen Lendman
2-4-8
Jonathan Cook is a
British-born independent journalist based (since September 2001) in the
predominantly Arab city of Nazareth, Israel and is the "first foreign
correspondent (living) in the Israeli Arab city...."
He's a former reporter and
editor of regional newspapers, a freelance sub-editor with national
newspapers, and a staff journalist for the London-based Guardian and
Observer newspapers. He's also written for The Times, Le Monde
diplomatique, the International Herald Tribune, Al-Ahram Weekly and
Aljazeera.net. In February 2004, he founded the Nazareth Press Agency.
Cook states why he's in
Nazareth as follows: to give himself "greater freedom to reflect
on the true nature of the (Israeli-Palestinian) conflict and (gain)
fresh insight into its root causes." He "choose(s)
the issues (he) wish(es) to cover (and so is) not constrained by the
'treadmill' of the mainstream media....which gives disproportionate
coverage to the concerns of the powerful (so it) makes much of their
Israel/Palestine reporting implausible."
Living among Arabs,
"things look very different" to Cook. "There are striking,
and disturbing, similarities between" the Palestinian experience
inside Israel and within the Occupied Territories. "All have faced
Zionism's appetite for territory and domination, as well as repeated
(and unabated) attempts at ethnic cleaning."
Cook authored two important
books and contributed to others. His first one in 2006 was titled
"Blood and Religion: The
Unmasking of the Jewish and Democratic State."
It's the rarely told story of the plight of the 1.4 million Palestinian
Israeli citizens living inside the Jewish State, the discrimination
against them, the reasons why, and the likely future consequences from
it. Israel's "demographic problem" is the issue as Cook explains. It's
the time when a faster-growing Palestinian population (aside from the
diaspora) becomes a majority, and the very character of a "Jewish State"
is threatened. Israel's response - state-sponsored repression and
violent ethnic cleansing to prevent it - in the Territories as well as
in Israel.
Cook's newest book, just
published, is called
"Israel and the Clash of Civilisations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to
Remake the Middle East."
It's the subject of this
review in the wake of advance praise. Noted author John Pilger calls it
"One of the most cogent understandings of the modern Middle East I
have read. It is superb, because the author himself is a unique witness"
to events and powerfully documents them. This review covers them
in-depth along with some of this writer's reflections on the region from
America.
Introducing his topic, Cook
begins with Iraq and states upfront that "civil war and partition
were the intended outcomes of invasion." Separation and conflict
were planned, they serve America's interests, they're not haphazard
post-invasion events, and
they originated far from
Washington.
From the early 1980s, it was
Israeli policy to subdue the Palestinians, fragment Arab rivals, and
foster ethnic and religious discord to maintain unchallengeable regional
dominance. Bush administration neocons chose the same strategy. Like
Israel, they want to neutralize the region through division and
separation and make it work even though prior to invading Iraq, Sunni
and Shia neighborhoods were indistinguishable, and the country had the
highest intermarriage rate in the region.
The scheme is "Ottomanisation,"
and it worked for Ottoman Turkey against a more dominant Islam. Israel
sees four advantages to it:
-
divided minorities
are easier to exploit, and Sunni - Shia conflict can achieve a
greater aim - subverting Israel's main threat - secular Arab
nationalism united against the Jewish State;
-
greater military
dominance lets Israel maintain its favored status as a valued
Washington ally;
-
regional instability may
lead to the breakup of Saudi-dominated OPEC, weaken the kingdom's
influence in Washington, and diminish its ability to finance Islamic
extremists and Palestinian resistance; and
-
Israel becomes freerer
to ethnically cleanse Palestinians from Israel and the Occupied
Territories.
Washington supported the
scheme post-9/11, the "war on terror" was born, a clash of civilizations
ensued, and the idea was that "Control of oil could be secured on the
same terms as Israeli regional hegemony: by spreading instability across
the Middle East" and Central Asia through a new-type divide and conquer
strategy. For Israel, it weakens regional rivals and dampens Palestinian
nationalism and their hopes for "meaningful statehood."
Regime Overthrow in Iraq
Removing Saddam Hussein was
justified to disarm a dangerous dictator threatening the region. It was
untrue and based on "False Pretenses" according to a study by two
nonprofit journalism organizations. On January 22, it was posted on the
Center for Public Integrity web site. It's "an exhaustive
examination of the record" that shows the President and his
seven top officials "waged a carefully orchestrated campaign of
misinformation about the threat" Iraq posed to galvanize public opinion
and go to war "under decidedly false pretenses."
At least 532 separate
speeches, briefings, interviews, testimonies and more provide the
evidence. They show a concerted web of lies became the administration's
case for war even though it's clear Iraq had no WMDs or any ties to Al-Queda.
Numerous bipartisan investigations drew the same conclusion, including
those by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence in 2004 and 2006,
the multinational Iraq Survey Group's "Duelfer Report," and even the
dubious 9/11 Commission.
The study cites 232 false
Bush statements alone about WMDs and 28 others about links to Al-Queda.
Colin Powell, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and others
put out the same lies that increased after August 2002 and spiked much
higher in the weeks preceding invasion. In all, the study documented 935
false statements, the dominant media spread them, their deception is now
revealed, and yet the administration avoided any responsibility for its
actions and the media is unapologetic. In addition, there are no
congressional investigations, and the war is still misportrayed as a
liberating one when its clear intent was to erase a nation, divide and
rule it, turn it into a free market paradise, use it as a launching
platform to dominate the region, and control its oil.
Saddam was never a credible
threat. In addition, he'd been effectively disarmed in the early 1990s,
but US officials suppressed what UN weapons inspectors' learned - the
Gulf War neutralized Iraq and "there were no unresolved
disarmament issues." Further, Saddam's son-in-law, Hussein
Kamel, ran the country's WMD program in the 1980s and early 1990s. In
1995, he defected to the West, was thoroughly debriefed, and confirmed
that there was no nuclear program, and "Iraq destroyed all its
chemical and biological weapons stocks and the missiles to deliver
them."
The story was widely
reported at the time, including a front page New York Times August 12
article headlined "Cracks in Baghdad" plus several subsequent
follow-ups as events developed. It was then buried, however, and never
resurfaced in the run-up to March, 2003. For Iraqis, the consequences
were horrific, and they began after Saddam was tricked into invading
Kuwait.
Four days later, Operation
Desert Shield was launched, economic sanctions followed, a large US
troop buildup began, and a sweeping Kuwait-funded PR campaign prepared
the public for Operation Desert Shield. It began on January 17,
1991, ended on February 28, caused mass killing, and all essential to
life facilities were destroyed, effectively returning the country to its
pre-industrial condition.
Twelve years of the most
comprehensive, genocidal sanctions followed. They included a crippling
trade embargo and an air blockade to enforce it. Adequate humanitarian
essentials were restricted, and the 1995 UN Oil-for-Food Program was a
well-planned scam. Until it ended after March 2003, it provided the
equivalent of 21 cents a day for food and 4 cents for medicines. In
addition, vital drugs and other essentials were banned because of their
claimed potential "dual use."
The toll was horrific and
got two UN heads of Iraqi humanitarian relief to resign with Dennis
Halliday saying in 1998 that he did so because he "had been
instructed to implement a policy that satisfies the definition of
genocide: a deliberate policy that has effectively killed over one
million individuals, children and adults," including 5000 Iraqi
children a month in his judgment.
Conditions got worse
post-March 2003 with street violence commonplace; mounting deaths and
injuries; and a total breakdown of essential services, including
electricity, clean drinking water, sanitation, medical care, and
education made worse by mass unemployment and poverty - an
occupation-created humanitarian disaster of epic proportions that
continues to worsen.
Four million refugees left
the country or are internally displaced, one-third of the population
needs emergency aid, millions can't get enough food, malnourishment is
rampant, medical care barely exists, and the British medical journal The
Lancet published the Johns Hopkins University School of Public Health
study on the death toll in October 2006. It estimated 655,000 violent
deaths since March 2003 that could be as high as 900,000 at the time
(and now much higher) because interviewers couldn't survey the country's
most violent areas and omitted from the study thousands of families in
which all members were killed.
Cook quoted a Palestinian
academic, Karma Nabulsi, citing similarities between Iraq and occupied
Palestine - two populations "living in a Hobbesian vision of an
anarchic society: truncated, violent, powerless, destroyed, cowed, ruled
by disparate militias, gangs, religious ideologues and extremists,
broken up into ethnic and religious tribalism and co-opted
collaborationists." Palestinians and Iraqis resist, demand their
freedom, and polls shows overwhelming numbers want the occupations to
end. In Iraq, almost no one thinks America came to liberate them or
establish democracy.
Nearly everyone knows
Washington's real intent - permanent occupation to control the country's
oil so Big Oil giants can exploit it for profit, deny Iraqis their own
natural wealth, and give America "veto power" over rivals and potential
ones to assure their compliance.
A September 1978 Joint
Chiefs of Staff memorandum is particularly notable. It listed three US
Middle East objectives:
-- "assure continuous
access to petroleum resources,
-- prevent an inimical
power or combination of powers from establishing hegemony, and
-- assure the survival
of Israel as an independent state in a stable relationship with
contiguous Arab states."
Of great concern to US
planners, then and now, is "curbing and crushing (Arab and
Iranian) nationalism that might inspire Middle Eastern states"
to claim the right to their own resources and deny the West their
benefits. Twentieth century history documents how Britain and America
controlled the region, installed puppet rulers, backed repressive
dictators, removed uncompliant ones, and looted oil-rich states for
their gain. Iraq is now exploited, local industry was crushed, US
corporations plunder the country, and the so-called hydrocarbon law
gives Big Oil the same right to the nation's oil - if it's enacted but
so far it's stalled.
The Iraqi cabinet approved
it last February, but that's where things now stand because of mass
public opposition to a blueprint for plunder.
[recently, it was
revealed that the U.S. has offered $5 million dollars to each member of
Iraq's Congress who votes for the new "hydrocarbon law"; voting U.S.
style - CR]
If the puppet parliament
passes it, foreign investors will reap a bonanza of resources leaving
Iraq with just slivers. Its complex provisions, still being manipulated,
give the Iraqi National Oil Company exclusive control to less than
one-fifth of the country's operating fields with all
yet-to-be-discovered deposits (most of Iraq's reserves) set aside for
Big Oil. Even worse, contracts (under "production sharing agreements")
up to 35 years will be granted, all earnings may be expropriated, and
foreign interests have no obligation to invest in Iraq's economy,
partner with Iraqi companies, hire local workers, respect union rights,
or share new technologies.
Earlier in the 20th century,
America coveted Middle East oil once its potential was realized. Post-WW
I, however, Britain occupied Iraq and Kuwait, benefitted most until WW
II, miscalculated on Saudi's importance, and let the Roosevelt
administration secure an oil concession in the 1930s that began close
ties between the two nations. The President and King ibn Saud struck a
deal. America guaranteed the kingdom's security in return for a steady
supply of oil at stable prices, and later on, the recycling of huge
petrodollar profits into US investments and military hardware.
Thereafter, the region was
key, and the Carter Doctrine highlighted it after engineering the Shah's
removal in 1979. Carter stated - "Let our position be absolutely
clear: An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian
Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the
United States of America (and) will be repelled by any means necessary,
including military force."
Post-9/11, the Bush Doctrine
applied Carter policy globally in the 2002 National Security Strategy (NSS),
later revised and made harsher in 2006. It's an imperial grand plan for
world dominance, preventive wars are the strategy, the Middle East and
Central Asia are its main targets, and the powerful Israeli Lobby
assures Washington and Tel Aviv interests are in lockstep. More on that
below.
The Long Campaign against
Iran
The January 2007 Herzliya,
Israel conference was notable for what's become the country's premiere
political event. This one differed from others in two respects.
Forty-two past and present US policy makers were invited, and attention
focused on a Shia "arc of extremism" with debates and discussion
highlighting Iran and Hezbollah.
Participants claimed Iran
spread regional instability, was close to developing nuclear weapons,
and would use them against Israel. There were similar echoes from the
January 2008 conference with comments from speakers like Ehud Barak
saying "The Iranian nuclear threat remains critical (and) We will
not accept an Iran which possesses a nuclear capable military."
General Ephraim Sneh added "Our problem is not the nuclear
problem, but rather the Iranian regime. (It) incorporates imperial
ambition, hatred of Israel, increasing military strength, and an
unlimited budget." Ignored was common knowledge or any glimmer
of truth - that the late Ayatollah Khomeini banned nuclear weapons
development, today's Iranian officials repeatedly stress the country's
only nuclear aim is commercial, and Tehran represents no threat to
Israel or any other country in or outside the region.
Since the early 1990s,
Israel claimed otherwise - that Iran sought nuclear weapons, represented
an existential threat, and had to be confronted. By 1994, Haaretz
reported that the country's top priority was neutralizing Iran to thwart
its regional aspirations because Tehran threatened to acquire nuclear
weapons, long-range missiles, and had the ability to export terrorism
and revolution to subvert secular Arab regimes. Iraq was already under
sanctions, but Israel saw both countries as a combined threat. Weakening
one would only strengthen the other, so both had to be smashed.
With Iraq under occupation,
Iran's now called the center of world terrorism and packaged with Syria
and Hezbollah as Israel's axis of evil with Hamas added later after its
early 2006 electoral victory. Israel has big aims - to become a regional
hegemon, prevent a rival power from influencing the "peace process," and
deny the Palestinians any hope of ending the occupation. It thus
manufactured an Iranian threat and along with Washington blocks dialogue
and negotiation.
Claiming Iran is a nuclear
menace runs counter to the facts. Tehran is years away from producing
nuclear power, and IAEA head Mouhammad el-Baradei reports no evidence
that Iran is building or seeks to build nuclear weapons. He also told
the press last August that "Iran is ready to discuss all
outstanding issues which triggered the crisis in confidence. It's a
significant step. There are clear guidelines (and Iran is not) dallying
with the agency (or) prolong(ing) negotiations to avoid
sanctions....Iran (deserves) a chance to prove its stated goodwill."
IAEA also reported Iran's
uranium enrichment program slowed, operates well below capacity, and
isn't producing nuclear fuel in significant amounts. It had only 1968
centrifuges functioning, several hundred others in various stages of
assembly or testing, and its enrichment level is well below what's
needed to build a nuclear bomb. In addition, in December 2007, the US
National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) reported that Iran halted its
nuclear weapons program in 2003 (without evidence one ever existed) and
has none of these weapons in its arsenal.
The Bush administration and
Israel sidestepped NIE and denounced the IAEA, called it an Iranian ploy
to buy time, and "There was no (Israeli) debate about which
country should be targeted after Iraq." The goal was to isolate
Iran, end its threat to Israel, but avoid the mistake of invading and
occupying another country with Iraq already out of control. Other
choices were preferable - stoking internal conflict, inciting
instability, attacking by air, and deciding which reports to believe.
An August 2007 one called
"Considering a war with Iran: A discussion paper on WMDs in the Middle
East" was particularly alarming. British experts Dan Plesch and
Martin Butcher prepared it, other evidence of impending conflict
supported it, no date was given, but they stated things are too far
along in planning to stop. They wrote the Pentagon has plans for a
"massive, multi-front, full-spectrum" shock and awe-type attack with
no ground invasion. Its aim is to target 10,000 sites with bombers and
long-range missiles, destroy the country's military capacity, nuclear
energy sites, economic infrastructure and other targets to destabilize
and oust its regime or reduce the country to a "weak or failed
state."
Washington also pressured
the UN to impose sanctions on Iran. In July 2006, the Security Council
passed Resolution 1696 demanding Tehran halt enriching uranium by August
31 or be sanctioned. UN Resolution 1737 followed in December, cited the
country's nuclear program and imposed limited sanctions with further
ones applied after UN Resolution 1747 passed in March. On January 22,
2008, the five permanent Security Council members and Germany agreed to
a third round of sanctions that was less than what the Bush
administration wanted.
The cat and mouse game
continues, the threat of wider war remains, and nothing may be resolved
with the current administration in power. Nor is there much chance for
change under a new one in 2009 as hawkish candidates from both parties
dominate the race and support Israel's design on Iran.
The Islamic Republic remains
Target One, but on July 12, 2006 the Olmert government surprised. It
attacked Lebanon in a blatant act of aggression. It later came out the
war was long-planned, Washington was on board, and a minor incident
became the pretext to launch it. The target was Hezbollah, and the
scheme was to remove what former Deputy Secretary of State Richard
Armitage once called "the A-team of international terrorism."
That was his way of noting a long-time Israeli irritant that was able to
liberate Lebanon's south by ending the IDF's 22 year occupation in May
2000.
By summer 2006, strong
rhetoric suggested a wider war with Iran and Syria. Both countries were
accused of supplying Hezbollah with thousands of rockets to "wipe Israel
off the map," and they were being indiscriminately used to do it.
In fact, Hezbollah was
founded as a national liberation movement after Israel invaded Lebanon
in 1982. It's not an Islamist or terrorist organization as its founding
mission statement reveals. It was an "open letter to all the
oppressed in Lebanon and the world" stating its aims - to drive the
US, French and Israeli occupiers out of Lebanon, defeat the right wing
Christian Maronite Phalange party allied with Israel, and give our
people "liberty (in) the form of government they desire." It
added "we don't want to impose Islam upon anybody. We don't want
Islam to reign in Lebanon by force as is the case with the Maronites
today."
Today, Hezbollah is a
legitimate political and social organization that maintains a military
wing for self-defense. It represents Lebanon's Shia population (40% of
the total) and is respected for running a comprehensive network of
schools, health facilities and other social services available to anyone
in need, not just Shias. Nonetheless, it's been unfairly branded
anti-Jewish, accused of wanting to destroy Israel, and Washington put it
on its Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTO) list in 1997.
In summer 2006, Hezbollah
responded to Israeli aggression as its legitimate right. It targeted
military, not civilian, sites with spotty accuracy, hit some, and proved
to Israel's embarrassment that its forces, Iran and Syria knew site
locations that could be struck more accurately with more powerful
weapons in retaliation if attacked.
The threat is real, but
Hezbollah was the first order of business. Its rockets had to be
eliminated as Seymour Hersh reported. Otherwise, "You hit Iran (or
Syria first), Hezbollah then bombs Tel Aviv and Haifa," but more
was at stake as well. Backing Lebanon's Siniora government against
a weakened Hezbollah and asserting the army's control in the south was
key. In addition, with Iran and Syria potential targets, the Pentagon
wanted Israel to field test its bunker-buster bombs to learn their
effectiveness in advance.
Hezbollah was more
formidable than expected, it prevailed against Israel's might, its
leader, Sheik Hassan Nasralah, is stronger than ever, his support
extends beyond his Shia base in the south, the IDF suffered a
humiliating defeat, and that's where things now stand. Had the Olmert
government prevailed, Cook reports that an air attack on Syria was
planned, President Bashar Assad apparently knew it, a credible
Washington source revealed it, and the Israeli media suggested the Bush
administration wanted Israel to proceed.
Further hawkishness came
from Hebrew University professor Martin van Creveld, a respected
military historian "with intimate knowledge of the army's inner
workings and its collective ethos." His March 2007 Jewish Daily
Forward commentary argued that Syria planned to attack Israel no later
than October 2008, possibly with chemical weapons, but no evidence was
cited. He merely said the Assad government "had been on an armaments
shopping spree in Russia" and let readers draw their own
conclusions. Israel, he claimed, was thus justified to attack
preemptively even though there was credible evidence that Syria sought
resolution on the Golan issue, made overtures to negotiate, and the
Olmert government believed Assad was serious.
Nonetheless, he was rebuffed
and hard line Washington and Tel Aviv officials prevailed. Appeasing
Iran and Syria was off the table, removing their "dire threat" had to be
confronted, and it hardly mattered that none existed. Then came November
2006. Olmert's approval rating was dismal, and a newspaper poll showed
Netanyahu would best him in fresh elections. US Republicans were just as
weak. The November 2006 congressional elections sent a strong message -
end the war and bring home the troops. For the first time since 9/11,
neocon dominance was uncertain, tensions surfaced in the administration,
and a change of direction looked possible.
James Baker's Iraq Study
Group recommended one in December. It argued that US forces should be
gradually withdrawn from Iraq, Iran and Syria should be engaged to help
stabilize "what was clearly a failed state," and the home front
battle lines were drawn. Key Bush advisors continued to claim Iran was
the problem by trying to undermine Washington in Iraq. It was stirring
up Shia resistance, arming the Sunnis, and countering Tehran required
greater US involvement, not an exit.
For a while, it wasn't clear
how things would turn out, but in the end the administration remained
hard line, and in early 2007 announced a 30,000 troop surge, stepped up
pressure against Iran, and positioned a major naval strike force in the
Gulf. At the same time, President Ahmadinejad became another "Hitler"
and was misquoted as saying he was trying to "wipe Israel off the map."
He actually said "this regime that is occupying Jerusalem must
vanish from the page of time" in a reference to its military
conquest, illegally occupying Jerusalem, colonizing the Occupied
Territories, and repressing the Palestinian people. Ultimately, these
policies will fail, and respected analysts say the same thing.
Ahmadinejad made no
reference to Jews, only a racist Israeli government that relegates
non-Jews to second class status or worse. Regardless of his words and
meaning, every move and comment he now makes is scrutinized for any way
to attack him.
End of the Strongmen
Cook asks why were Israel
and the US extending the "war on terror" to the strongest Middle
East state, Iran, since it's the one most able to alleviate crisis in
Iraq? Why turn a "clash of civilisations" into an added Sunni-Shia
struggle and risk making an unstable situation worse? Many Middle
Eastern states are "uncomfortable amalgams of Sunni and Shia
populations" because they were combined into unnatural states
post-WW I. By late 2006, internal conflicts destabilized Iraq and
Lebanon, threatened to spread, and Washington and Tel Aviv were
encouraging it.
By confronting Iran and
Syria, things may only worsen, but White House reasoning is that this as
preferable to a united resistance targeting its occupation. Israel has
the same view, and it lay behind the summer 2006 Lebanon war. At its
start, it was hoped conflict would unite Christians and Sunnis against
Hezbollah and repeat the sectarian civil war that ravaged the country
from 1975 to 1990. Instead, the nation united against Israel, and
Hezbollah's power and overall status was enhanced, the opposite of what
Tel Aviv planned.
The same strategy is playing
out in the Occupied Territories, but its outcome is unresolved. After
Hamas' electoral victory, Israel refused recognition, and the US and
West went along. All outside aid was cut off, an economic embargo and
sanctions were imposed, and the legitimate government was isolated.
Stepped up repression followed along with repeated IDF incursions and
attacks, and the idea was to foment internal conflict on Gaza streets.
It went on for months, then subsided (with occasional flare-ups) when
Hamas prevailed against Fatah. It defeated Mahmoud Abbas' heavily
US-Israeli-armed paramilitaries that were led by Mohammed Dahlan. In
spite of defeat, Israel achieved a long-standing aim. It split the
Palestinians into two rival camps in Gaza and the West Bank and
recognized the unelected Abbas government as legitimate.
Israel plans the same fate
for Syria, but Cook says its "closed society (is) more difficult to
read." Nonetheless, Congress passed the Syria Accountability Act in
late 2003 to justify a US and/or Israeli future attack on any pretext
that's never hard to find. A clause in the law states Syria is
"accountable for any harm to Coalition armed forces or to any United
States citizen in Iraq if the government of Syria is found to be
responsible" even without proof. Whatever Syria does, it is
thwarted despite clear evidence it seeks peace with the West and Israel
and will make concessions in return for resolution to long-outstanding
issues like the Golan.
Cook thus wonders "who
controls American foreign policy?" Does the dog wag the tail or the
opposite given the power of Israel to influence policy? One camp argues
the former with distinguished figures like Noam Chomsky believing
Washington has a "consistent, predictable and monolithic view of
American interests abroad" and how best to secure them.
How to explain Iraq then
since the administration rejected the advice of many of its key policy
advisors, including what Big Oil wanted. Instead, it opted for a messy
"regime overthrow," not a simpler "regime change" that
worked well in the past without war and occupation. In addition,
attacking Iran guarantees regional turmoil, greater instability, regimes
likely toppling, intensified Iraq conflict targeting Americans, higher
oil prices, possible world recession, and no assurance of a favorable
outcome.
Why risk it when Iran sought
dialogue for years, but Washington consistently refuses. Cook cites two
US academics, John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt and might have included
James Petras' work and his powerfully important book titled "The Power
of Israel in the United States." This writer reviewed it in-depth and
was greatly struck by its persuasive content. It documents the Lobby's
depth and breath at the highest levels of government, throughout
Congress, business boardrooms, academia, the clergy (especially dominant
Christian fundamentalists) and the mass media. Together they assure full
and unconditional support for most Israeli interests most of the time
going back decades. Wars included - in the Occupied Territories, against
Lebanon, the Gulf War, the current Iraq war as well as all Israeli wars
since 1967 and the prospect of engaging Iran and Syria despite strong
opposition at home.
Cook presents his own view
saying "the dog
and tail wag each other,"
and that's Israel's
strategy by making both countries dependent on the other for dominance
in and outside the region.
He believes Israel persuaded
administration neocons that both countries shared mutual goals. It
worked because it placed US interests of global domination and
controlling oil at the heart of strategy.
Consider also a
long-standing "special relationship" between the two countries
going back decades. Senate Foreign Relations Committee private meeting
transcripts before and after the 1967 war reveal it. They explain, early
on, that Washington valued Israel as a strategic ally in a vitally
important part of the world. Aside from oil, the Johnson administration
called Israel a useful Cold War asset at a time Russia courted leading
Arab states and made progress. Its regional wars were also helpful to
confront the kind of nationalist threat Egypt's Nasser represented. They
split regional states into irreconcilable camps - weak Gulf ones like
the Saudis needing US protection; stronger regimes in Egypt, Jordan and
Iran under the Shah; and outliers like Syria, Libya, Iraq and Iran after
1979.
Cook recounts Ariel Sharon's
vision of empire as a regional superpower in an early 1980s speech he
never made. He radically departed from Israel's traditional strategy of
either seeking peace or directly confronting hostile neighbors. His new
thinking was to extend Tel Aviv's influence to the whole region by
achieving qualitative and technological weapons superiority.
Sharon was a seasoned
general, his views were respected, and he greatly influenced younger
officers who rose in prominence and, in the case of Ehud Barak, became
Prime Minister like himself. He believed Israel should impose its
dictates and force other regional states to comply or be punished.
The "Sharon Doctrine," as
its called, also reflected the views National Security Adviser, General
Uzi Dayan, and Mossad head, Ephraim Halevy stated in December 2001. They
called 9/11 a "Hannukkah miracle" because it gave Israel a chance
to marginalize and confront its enemies. Henceforth, all "Islamic
terror" elements could be grouped together as threats to the
region's rulers. Confronting it was crucial, so after Afghanistan Iraq,
Iran and Syria were next "as soon as possible." It was
Dick Cheney's vision of permanent "war that won't end in our
lifetimes."
In 1982, Israeli journalist
and former Foreign Affairs Ministry senior advisor, Oded Yinon, proposed
an even more radical idea. Like Sharon, he advocated transforming Israel
into a regional power with an added goal: breaking up Arab states into
ethnic and confessional groupings that Israel could more easily control.
Similar to Huntington's "clash of civilizations," Yinon suggested
we were witnessing cataclysmic times, the "collapse of the world
order," and he identified the threat: "The strength,
dimension, accuracy and quality of nuclear and non-nuclear weapons will
overturn most of the world in a few years." He believed an age
of terror emerged that would challenge Israel with growing Arab
militancy.
His remedy - install
minority population leaders who are dependent on colonial powers even
after nominal independence. It worked in Lebanon under the Maronites, in
Syria under the Alawis, and in Jordan under Hashemite monarchs. Yinon
believed these states were weak, as were oil-rich ones, could be easily
dissolved, and doing it was key to forcibly displacing Palestinians from
the Territories and inside Israel. Furthermore, achieving dominance
depended on dissolving Arab states so Israel would be unchallengeable
and able to complete its ethnic cleansing process.
Remaking the Middle East
After the Soviet Russia
dissolved, Israel's military had to convince Washington it could be
useful in a post-Cold War world. Would it be a bullying enforcer or a
regional guarantor of US and Israeli dominance by sowing disorder and
instability? In the 1990s, "two new kinds of Middle Eastern political
and paramilitary actors" emerged - Sunni jihadis called Al-Queda and
elements like the Taliban in Afghanistan and Hezbollah in south Lebanon.
They represent formidable challenges that aren't easily intimidated or
bullied.
In this type world, threats
are at a sub-state level, so Yinon's scheme was appealing - encourage
discord and feuding within nations, destabilize them, and arrange their
dismemberment into mini-states. Tribes and sectarian elements could be
turned on each other, and alliances with non-Arab, non-Muslim groups
like Christians, Kurds and Druze could be cultivated to advantage.
One problem remains, however
- the possibility that another Middle East state may develop nuclear
weapons, challenge Israel's dominance and get away with it. Nonetheless,
Israel planned "organized chaos" across the region and convinced
administration neocons the scheme was sensible. They had every reason to
approve, and powerful opposition at home aside, they're destabilizing
the region along with Israel. There's no guaranteed outcome, the
subsequent fallout is unpredictable, but consider the possibilities. The
administration is quite able to vaporize Iran and Syria and end the
homeland republic if that's the plan. It's also what other states have
to fear.
Cook considers why Israel
and Washington chose this agenda despite the risks:
-- by controlling Iran
and Iraq, oil production can be increased and prices brought down to
a desired level;
-- Israel's rivals will
be economically and politically crippled as will Palestinians in the
Territories and inside Israel;
-- Gulf states will also
be weakened, including Saudi Arabia; and one major out-of-region
goal may be achieved -
-- containing China by
controlling its main oil source; it may also be easier to dismember
the country the way the Soviet Union was dissolved.
The goal is grandiose, risky
and its chance of succeeding highly improbable. Consider Russia under
Vladimir Putin. Contained under Boris Yeltsin, it's no longer a
pushover. In a largely ignored June 2007 speech, Putin highlighted
deteriorating US-Russian relations post-9/11 with alarm. Bush
administration policies were threatening and endangered his country's
security:
-- US military bases
encircle it;
-- former Soviet states
were recruited into NATO;
-- offensive missiles
were installed on its borders on the pretext of missile defense;
-- allied Central Asian
regimes were toppled to Washington's advantage; and
-- US-backed Serbian,
Ukrainian and Georgian "pro-democracy" groups incited political
instability in Moscow.
These actions convinced
Russian hard-liners that America plans regime change and further
fragmentation of the Federation. China sees this, too, and knows it may
be next. It's gotten both powers to ally in two organizations for their
own self-defense and to compete with the US for control of Central
Asia's vast reserves - the Asian Energy Security Grid and the more
significant Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) that was formed in
2001 for political, diplomatic, economic and security reasons as a
counterweight to an encroaching US-dominated NATO. Other regional powers
may also join one or both alliances, including India, Iran and even
South Korea and Japan as a new millennium Great Game unfolds. [bold
emphasis added - CR]
On the other side are the US
and Israel with the Occupied Territories a test laboratory for what they
have in mind for the region. Israel has been at it since the 1967 war
when the idea was to expel Palestinians to Jordan because "Jordan is
Palestine." The only debate was how to do it.
At the same time, Israel
long considered dismembering Arab countries into feuding mini-states,
and in the early 1980s, Haaretz's military correspondent, Ze'ev Schiff,
wrote that Israel's "best" interests would be served by "the
dissolution of Iraq into a Shi'ite state, a Sunni state and the
separation of the Kurdish part." Ever since, Israel implemented this
practice in the Territories along with testing urban warfare tactics,
new weapons and crowd control techniques. Workable or not, it's been a
boon to business and it's built Israel's economy around responding to
violence at home and everywhere.
Israeli technology firms
pioneered the homeland security industry, still dominate it, and it's
made the country the most tech-dependent one in the world and its fourth
largest arms exporter after the US (far and away the biggest), Russia
and France. The US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is one of its
biggest customers for high-tech fences, unmanned drones, biometric IDs,
video and audio surveillance gear, air passenger profiling, prisoner
interrogation systems, thermal imaging systems, fiber optics security
systems, tear gas products and ejector systems and much more.
With products like these and
lessons learned from the Territories, Israel believes it can abandon the
old puppet strongman model of controlling populations. It wants no part
of a "Palestinian dictator" who might encourage Palestinian nationalism,
challenge Israeli rule, and disrupt settlement development plans in the
Territories. Building them depends on keeping Palestinians divided,
weak, unable to resist, and easier to remove from land Israel wants to
incorporate into a greater Israel that includes south Lebanon.
After the 1967 war, Israel
prevented new Palestinian leaders from emerging and first tried to
manage the population along family or communal lines by co-opting its
leaders or eliminating ones who became obstacles. By 1981, Sharon (as
defense minister) refined the scheme into what was named "Village
Leagues" that were local anti-PLO militias. The system was abandoned,
however, when Palestinians rebelled against their collaborating leaders
so Israel tried new approaches.
Most important was the
Muslim Brotherhood (that had roots in Egypt) that later became Hamas in
the late 1980s. Israel, at the time, believed traditional Islamic
elements were more easily managed than PLO nationalists, would later
learn otherwise, and it led to a radically new experiment - the Oslo
process. It began secretly with a post-Gulf War weakened PLO, specified
no outcome, and let Israel delay, refuse to make concessions, and
continue colonizing the Territories. For their part Palestinians
renounced armed struggle, recognized Israel's right to exist, agreed to
leave major unresolved issues for indefinite later final status talks,
and got nothing in return.
Yasser Arafat and his
cohorts got what they wanted - a get-out-of-Tunis free pass where they
were in exile following the 1982 Lebanon war. They got to come home,
take charge of their people and become Israel's enforcer. Interestingly,
Cook points out a little known fact. Many high-level Israeli security
figures opposed Oslo. They saw it giving Arafat an "internationalist
platform" to encourage Palestinian nationalism that might undermine
Israel. After Rabin's assassination, it wasn't surprising that the
spirit of Oslo died, Arafat became isolated, spent much of the second
intifada a prisoner in his Ramallah compound, and died in a Paris
hospital in November 2004, the victim of Israeli poisoning with
convincing evidence to prove it.
In the meanwhile, Israel
scrapped Oslo and tried a new approach - cantonizing Gaza and the West
Bank to crush organized resistance and dissolve Palestinian nationalism.
It began with checkpoints and curfews. Then it was hardened into forced
separation, displacement, willful harassment, land seizures, home
demolitions, bypass roads, and state-sponsored violence matching
lightly-armed people against the world's fourth most powerful military
with every imaginable weapon at its disposal and no hesitancy using them
against civilians.
At the same time, Israel
chose a co-optable Mahmoud Abbas over the legitimate Hamas government.
Its leaders will only recognize Israel if Palestinians are recognized in
return and given an independent homeland inside pre-1967 borders or
there's one state for all Israeli citizens. Israel, of course, refuses,
and continues expanding settlements on expropriated land. In addition,
with Abbas' Fatah in the West Bank and Hamas in Gaza, Israel assures the
two sides remain divided and continue fighting each other for control.
That's the strategy to keep Palestinians marginalized and Israel
confident that what's now working in the Territories can be applied
advantageously across the region.
That became Bush
administration strategy early on with extremist neocons in charge led by
Dick Cheney. They knew all along that invading and occupying Iraq would
unleash sectarian violence "on an unprecedented scale." Cook
notes that the scheme came out of a 1996 policy paper called "A Clean
Break" that was written by key neocons behind the war - David
Wurmser, Richard Pearle and Douglas Feith. They predicted that after
Saddam fell Iraq would "be ripped apart by the politics of
warlords, tribes, clans, sects and key families" because Sunni
leadership maintained unity through state repression.
Pre-war, Britain knew it as
well, and, in May 2007, a US Senate Intelligence Committee reported that
US intelligence documents warned of post-invasion chaos because Iraq is
one of the least cohesive Middle East states with rival Sunni, Shia and
Kurdish populations. This, however, fits perfectly with the type
occupation Washington wants. It also justifies the "war on terror,"
and prepares things for the final solution Israel advocates -
splitting the country into three mini-states: a Kurdish one in the
North, Shias in the South, and Sunnis between them.
Making it work won't be
easy, however, because Iraq's largest cities have mixed populations.
It's the reason the Pentagon plans to cantonize them Israeli-style by
enclosing neighborhoods with barricades and walls and require special
IDs for entry. Israel plans the same thing for Lebanon where a large
Shia population has been marginalized under the country's
"confessional" system. It allocates public office along religious
lines, gives disproportionate power to Christian and Sunni minorities,
but Hezbollah is challenging the pro-western government with things so
far unresolved.
After the 2006 war,
Hezbollah got stronger, Washington supports the Siniora government, and
is promoting a "Cedar Revolution" like the "Orange" and
"Rose" ones it successfully engineered in Ukraine and Georgia.
Assassinations and car bombings are part of the scheme, they're blamed
on Syria without evidence, but a more likely culprit is Mossad that has
a long history in the region engineering this type violence. Cook quotes
former US counter-terrorism expert, Fred Burton, saying the technology
used in Lebanon's recent assassinations is available only to a few
countries - the US, Israel, Britain, France and Russia.
The Pentagon and CIA are
also active in "black operations" in Iran, have been for many
months, and it's no secret why. As in Iraq, Lebanon and Palestine, it's
to create ethnic tensions throughout the country, promote conflict, and
hope it will destabilize the government and force it into a mistake
Washington can jump on in response. A Pentagon source told Seymour Hersh
that their operatives are working with Azeris in the north, Baluchis in
the southeast, Kurds in the northeast, and their own special forces
in-country as well. The pot is bubbling, and Iran knows it.
It's a new version of the
older colonial "divide and rule" scheme that so far proved
ineffective, and Hezbollah leader, Hassan Nasrallah, thinks he knows
what's going on. He says Israel and Washington want to partition Iraq,
Iran, Lebanon and Syria. If he's right, as seems likely, it means the
idea is to change the way colonial powers ruled post-WW I, and Cook
challenges it. He believes making it work is "improbable (and)
little more than a deluded fantasy." It worked in Yugoslavia,
but the Arab world is different.
He concludes his book saying
a generation of Washington policy makers have been "captivated"
by thinking the Middle East can be remade by "spreading instability
and inter-communal strife." Instead, Cook sees a different outcome -
new political, religious and social alliances forming across the region.
If Washington pursues its "war on terror," he sees continued
"war without end" with no victory. After the chaotic Bush years,
it's hard disagreeing with him.
Stephen Lendman lives in
Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. Also visit
his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.