Whoops - Israel Told US to Attack Iran, Not Iraq After 9/11 (Lawrence Wilkerson)

[kpete]

POLITICS: Israel Warned US Not to Invade Iraq after 9/11

By Gareth Porter*

WASHINGTON, Aug 28 (IPS) - Israeli officials warned the George W. Bush administration that an invasion of Iraq would be destabilising to the region and urged the United States to instead target Iran as the primary enemy, according to former administration official Lawrence Wilkerson.

Wilkerson, then a member of the State Department's Policy Planning Staff and later chief of staff for Secretary of State Colin Powell, recalled in an interview with IPS that the Israelis reacted immediately to indications that the Bush administration was thinking of war against Iraq. After the Israeli government picked up the first signs of that intention, Wilkerson says, "The Israelis were telling us Iraq is not the enemy -- Iran is the enemy."

Wilkerson describes the Israeli message to the Bush administration in early 2002 as being, "If you are going to destabilise the balance of power, do it against the main enemy."

..................

Wilkerson notes that the main point of their communications was not that the United States should immediately attack Iran, but that "it should not be distracted by Iraq and Saddam Hussein" from a focus on the threat from Iran.

more at:
http://mparent7777-2.blogspot.com/2007/08/israel-told-us-to-attack-iran-not-iraq.html

[dipsydoodle]

1. Whoops indeed.

Certainly sounds plausible.

[cali]

2. Your title is misleading

The body of the post does not support that Israel urged the U.S. to attack Iran.

And jeez, this might put a dent into the arguments that we fought the Iraq war at the behest of Israel, and that Israel is responsible for all of our foreign policy, and blah blah. Nah, on second thought,nothing's gonna put an end to that.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

3. I Think Bush Wanted To Attack Iran But Attacked Iraq By Mistake Because They Sound Alike

eom

[dipsydoodle]

15. I personally believe......................

He got Miss South Carolina to show him where it was on a map. :rofl:

[loudsue]

24. rofl.....and all the African children......

too sad!

:kick:

[The Magistrate]

4. An Interesting Article, Ma'am

It ought to put paid to the imflammatory line that the administration invaded Iraq at the behest of Israel, acting as a pawn of that state.

It is clear from this the gist of the Israeli government's advice was that neither Iraq or Iran ought to be attacked, but that if the administration was dead set on attacking someone, Iran would be a marginally better choice. Destruction of Hussein's Iraq, as has become obvious even to the most oblivious minds in the event, plays into long-term goals of the mullah's regime in Iran; harm done the mullah's regime in Iraq could have brought no such benefit to Hussein.

[azurnoir]

8. I must disagree with that

The invasion of Iraq was a given from the moment Bush was "elected", the sanctions against Iraq were "softening up" if you will an enemy before the supposed kill. What truly amazes me is the willingness of the "pro-Israel" lobby to bend over and become the scapegoat for the whole mess in exchange for a few favors for Israel.

[The Magistrate]

9. It is Not Clear To Me Where We Disagree, Ma'am

My comments did not address the administration's predispositions, only the advice given by the Israeli government, as reported in this article.

Nothing done by "the 'pro-Israel' lobby" has made it a scape-goat for the administration's invasion of Iraq. Rather, a few people with a fixed resolve to take Israel as the author of all calamity have done what they always do, and very few people anywhere take the noise they make seriously.

[azurnoir]

11. I took your post as meaning that

the invasion of Iraq was something that materialized after the 2000 elections or 9/11. I was going to amend my comment on the"pro0Israeli" lobby to say any actions against Iran, this was accomplished with Cheney's meeting with AIPAC earlier this year.

[cali]

12. huh?

You're not making yourself terribly clear.

[The Magistrate]

13. That Gets Us A Bit Beyond The Article Itself, Ma'am

U.S. policy in the Gulf, from about 1980, focused on maintaining a balance between Iran and Iraq, that gave neither a decisive edge over the other, but bled strength from both in their mutual hostility. It was a policy that worked pretty well, and that ought not to have been put aside.

A very large part of the reason the elder Bush lost the '92 election was the continued presence of Hussein in power in Iraq. This totally removed the triumphalism the victory only a year earlier. Certainly members of that administration in later years desired to reverse this 'error', and certainly the scape-grace son wanted to show up his father and succeed where the old man had failed. There is abundant evidence now publicly available this administration took office with a resolve to find some pretext for overthrowing Hussein by invasion. It seems fairly clear this was discussed in Cheney's 'energy policy' conference, and that that is a principal reason for the tenacious resolve to keep that secret that has been displayed.

The idea Cheney's address of AIPAC has any signifigance for administration policy regarding Iran displays, to my mind, an instinct for the capillary rather than the jugular. Administration policy in this regard has far deeper and sturdier roots than the trifling efforts of a lobbying group. Khomeni's revolution was the commencement of a profound hostility towards the United States pressed by state power, and the humiliation inflicted on the United States through the seizure of our Embassy in Tehran, and numerous following incidents, has long rankled not only in 'hard-boiled' policy circles, but among the populace at large. Admiministration policy in the region now, and since September 11, 2001, has amounted essentially to a resolve to settle all old scores there while the public's blood was up and eager for action.

[azurnoir]

17. The humiliation of the US

dates back to 1973, when the US was brought to it's knees both politically and economically by an oil embargo. The US was forced to alter it's foreign policy in the ME and "kiss arse" to certain oil producers. The current situation in Iraq became inevitable then, although I am not certain that Iraq was the chosen country at that time. While yes the hostage situation in Iran was also an embarrassment, it was invaluable to the GOP in regaining power.
As to why Bush1 lost the '92 election, IMHO a tanking economy and Ross Perot played a larger role then Saddam who while still in power was "defanged",humiliated, and yesterday's news to the American public.

[Solon]

20. I disagree that the policies of the past "worked pretty well", in fact they backfired, badly....

we armed one regime, which was decidedly hostile to us, though justifiably so, through illegal arms trading, and at the same time we armed another regime and encouraged them to invade the other. The problem with continuing policies like this is that there is no end in sight, regardless of what occurred in the past, the policies that have so far continued into the present don't seem to be working that well. The problem is that the United States isn't blameless for the situation in the Persian Gulf, and has in fact made it worse through its own unilateral actions. Something will have to give.

[The Magistrate]

21. From The Point Of View, Sir

Of a desire to prevent either country from achieving a position of regional dominance, the policy of playing one against the other worked well. Neither Hussein nor the Iranian mullahs would have been, or would be, a desireable holder of such a position, certainly not from the point of view of the United States. The recent abandonment of that policy, issuing in the invasion of Iraq and overthrow of Hussein, has effectively handed the Iranian mullahs the regional dominance they sought, and thrown opportunities for territorial aggrandizement their way as well. This is an outcome devoutly not to be wished....

[Solon]

22. I'm not sure your analysis is entirely correct...

While I won't say the Mullahs are doves, the fact of the matter is that the Persian culture of Iran is rather insular in nature compared to most of its neighbors. The Iran/Iraq war was started by Iraq, after all, and Iran itself has not been a militarily aggressive nation for much of its history. Would they desire dominance through other means? Of course, and they pursued that, regardless of our actions, usually through oil diplomacy and the covert support of certain terrorist groups.

Besides that, the policy seemed to have backfired as far back as 1991, when Saddam Hussein stopped being a useful tool for the U.S. After we defanged him, as far as Iran was concerned, Iraq was no longer a threat. In fact, that could have been considered a coup de grace for helping Iran become a Democracy. With the U.S. concentrating so much energy on Iraq, rather than Iran, Iran started making overtures for moderation, concessions to the young people of Iran, progress was slow, but it seemed inevitable, then we had Bush, 9/11, and the "Axis of Evil" speech, and then that progress screeched to a halt and now Iran has again reverted to hardline policies, with paranoia used to justify it.

Theodore Roosevelt once said: "Speak softly, but carry a big stick." wise words, not even from someone who could be considered a dove either. It seems like our diplomacy since then has been to whack them over the head with the stick and scream: "Do you like me now!"

[The Magistrate]

25. Khomeni, Sir

Was a sort of 'Pan-Shia' expansionist, and saw Iran as a mere stepping stone to consolidate all Shia in a bloc. In service of this, his followers fomented agitation in southern Iraq and in Saudi Arabia. The desire remains a goal of the present clerical leadership.

Even after '91, Hussein remained a balance against Iran, and the playing off of the two against one another proceeded little changed.

That things have come to a bad pass now through various miscalculations and worse by the present administration we would seem to agree on.

[KaptBunnyPants]

14. Why did AIPAC allow Republicans to use "antisemitism" as a shield?

If they never supported this war in the first place, the Israel lobby has to be bumped down from scarily effective to laughably insane. For the past six years every reference to antisemitism I've seen was either about a liberal website or France. In the eyes of AIPAC, every call for peace masked a call for a new holocaust. Meanwhile, AIPAC never ran out of "Friends of Israel" awards to present to far right war mongers. And now they say they never even wanted war in Iraq. Great job with your public relations, fellows. You've made an alliance with a far right movement that hates the Jewish religion while pissing off all the people who are tolerant by nature, and apparently the only thing you got out of it was a war you didn't want. Brilliant.

[LeftishBrit]

18. Republicans and their international supporters have *not* used 'antisemitism' as a shield that I

can see.

The justifications that I've seen for the Iraq war have been (1) WMD; (2) Saddam was a bad leader who killed thousands of his own people (true, but the war did much worse as could have been predicted); (3) supposedly necessary to combat terrorism. Israel has scarcely been mentioned in the context of Iraq, except by people who want to blame the war on Israel. I've heard antisemitism brought up with regard to Ahmadejinad (who is certainly antisemitic), but not with regard to Saddam.

The AIPAC leadership no doubt did support Bush, which is a pity. But then so did a lot of people, including the British government.

[Kingofalldems]

5. * knew Iraq was an easier target

He then could strut around an aircraft carrier in his army man outfit.

[rfranklin]

7. Invading Iraq was planned long before and nothing was going

to deter them, even if they had to stage a Pearl Harbor-style attack on the U.S.A. Hmm, makes your wonder, doesn't it?

[redqueen]

6. nope... the attack on Iraq was strictly for the benefit of his profiteering buddies

oh, and al quaeda, of course

[Javaman]

10. Amazing what a typo will do...

An "N" you idiot not a "Q"!!!!

[LeftishBrit]

19. Well, they're both Abroad, and Bush was never very good at geography,

[malaise]

16. But but but

W told me Iraq had WMDs and Saddam tried to kill his daddy.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

23. its just one letter off, we were pretty close.

:rofl: