Planning America's Next Middle East War
The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), probably Washington's most powerful and feared lobbying group--begins its annual meeting on March 2, making this an apt time to re-run my post on AIPAC. At this year's meeting, Israel's Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, will speak, but so will almost every leader in the U.S. Congress. Ordinarily, this AIPAC meeting commands more attendance than any event except the U.S. President's State of the Union address. Fear and hope for favor.
High on AIPAC's agenda, this year, is getting a resolution through Congress reinforcing heavy economic sanctions on Iran. But this would scuttle the agreement reached between the United States and its European allies, on the one hand, and Iran, on the other. This hard-won six-month agreement begins the process of halting, and opening for inspection, aspects of Iran's nuclear-fuel development that many in Israel and America believe is intended for the creation of nuclear weapons. What Iran gets in return is a loosening of worldwide sanctions that are crippling its economy.
AIPAC's lobbying, and (indirect guiding of) huge political campaign funding, supports the policies of Israel's present government, which includes religious fundamentalist parties, parties in favor of building settlements on land that could become a Palestinian state, and parties most aggressively pushing war with Iran. And so, AIPAC supports scuttling the first-phase agreement with Iran, now in effect, by making impossible the lifting of sanctions that is what Iran "gets" in the agreement.
Because AIPAC resolutely works to implement, in the U.S. Congress and Executive, the policies of the Israeli government, many have argued that it should register as the lobbying group for a foreign power--as other such organizations do. So far, AIPAC has avoided this by means of certain technicalities (it does not contribute to political campaigns, it puts out a booklet telling its supporters who to support and who to oppose, and they do).
Another resolution now being supported by AIPAC is for the U.S. Congress to declare support--political, military, and otherwise--for a pre-emptive military strike by Israel against Iran. In effect, this would hand over to Israel the decision about when the United States will enter its next major war in the Middle East. And make no mistake, war against the geographically huge Iran, with its large population and military sophistication, would be much, much more costly than anything we saw in Iraq or Afghanistan.
Of course, President Obama does not want to see either of these resolutions passed, one of which would sink the American-European agreement with Iran, the other that would give Israel a green light to attack Iran and so draw America into its next Middle East War. For this reason, you might see a little less attendance at AIPAC by Democrats and members of the administration.
At any rate, here is what I posted on AIPAC a couple weeks ago, both here and on the Galt's Gulch site, and nothing I said has been refuted, although I have been called "Muzzie lover," antisemitic, a fraud, dishonest, and have been asked, "What Muslim jail did they let you out of?"
My link is to the post I did on AIPAC:
High on AIPAC's agenda, this year, is getting a resolution through Congress reinforcing heavy economic sanctions on Iran. But this would scuttle the agreement reached between the United States and its European allies, on the one hand, and Iran, on the other. This hard-won six-month agreement begins the process of halting, and opening for inspection, aspects of Iran's nuclear-fuel development that many in Israel and America believe is intended for the creation of nuclear weapons. What Iran gets in return is a loosening of worldwide sanctions that are crippling its economy.
AIPAC's lobbying, and (indirect guiding of) huge political campaign funding, supports the policies of Israel's present government, which includes religious fundamentalist parties, parties in favor of building settlements on land that could become a Palestinian state, and parties most aggressively pushing war with Iran. And so, AIPAC supports scuttling the first-phase agreement with Iran, now in effect, by making impossible the lifting of sanctions that is what Iran "gets" in the agreement.
Because AIPAC resolutely works to implement, in the U.S. Congress and Executive, the policies of the Israeli government, many have argued that it should register as the lobbying group for a foreign power--as other such organizations do. So far, AIPAC has avoided this by means of certain technicalities (it does not contribute to political campaigns, it puts out a booklet telling its supporters who to support and who to oppose, and they do).
Another resolution now being supported by AIPAC is for the U.S. Congress to declare support--political, military, and otherwise--for a pre-emptive military strike by Israel against Iran. In effect, this would hand over to Israel the decision about when the United States will enter its next major war in the Middle East. And make no mistake, war against the geographically huge Iran, with its large population and military sophistication, would be much, much more costly than anything we saw in Iraq or Afghanistan.
Of course, President Obama does not want to see either of these resolutions passed, one of which would sink the American-European agreement with Iran, the other that would give Israel a green light to attack Iran and so draw America into its next Middle East War. For this reason, you might see a little less attendance at AIPAC by Democrats and members of the administration.
At any rate, here is what I posted on AIPAC a couple weeks ago, both here and on the Galt's Gulch site, and nothing I said has been refuted, although I have been called "Muzzie lover," antisemitic, a fraud, dishonest, and have been asked, "What Muslim jail did they let you out of?"
My link is to the post I did on AIPAC:
SOURCE URL: https://www.facebook.com/WDonway
' I have been called "Muzzie lover," antisemitic, a fraud, dishonest, and have been asked, "What Muslim jail did they let you out of?" '
'Mr Groundhog Day' may suit better.