American Democracy: Pro-Israel Tweedledum and Tweedledee by *Maidhc Ó Cathail

Helen Keller’s pithy observation about American democracy being little more than a choice “between Tweedledum and Tweedledee” was never more true than in the upcoming midterm elections in the ninth congressional district of Illinois.

In a district which includes the affluent northern suburbs of Chicago along the shore of Lake Michigan, the central issue is not the two wars—or is it now three?—the country is fighting, nor is it the tanking economy, in great part caused by those debt-inducing wars. No, the burning issue here is… who cares more about Israel?

“A Jewish candidate has been trying to convince the mostly Jewish voters that his Jewish opponent has not done enough to protect the Jewish interest,” reports Ynetnews, the English language website of Israel’s most-read newspaper, Yedioth Ahronoth. Although less than 25 percent of the ninth district’s constituents are Jewish, and there is little agreement about what constitutes “the Jewish interest,” it’s not a bad summary of Republican challenger Joel Pollak’s campaign to oust the Democratic incumbent, Rep. Jan Schakowsky.

Pollak, an Orthodox Jew born in South Africa, charges Rep. Schakowsky with being “soft on Israel’s security.”

Let’s take a brief look at Congresswoman Schakowsky’s record on Capitol Hill to see if there’s any truth to Pollak’s allegations.

Since she was first elected to Congress in 1998, Schakowsky has consistently backed policies sought by Tel Aviv and its unregistered foreign agents in Washington, ensuring the continuation of the U.S. military, diplomatic, and financial support on which Israel crucially depends. As might be expected, her “100 percent” pro-Israel record has included a reflexive defense of Israeli aggression and demands for crippling sanctions against Iran.

In the wake of Operation Cast Lead, which killed over 300 Palestinian children, Schakowsky voted for a House resolution supporting Israel’s right to defend itself against attacks from Gaza. Later, she co-sponsored what Rep. Dennis Kucinich dubbed the “wrong is right” resolution condemning the Goldstone report, which Kucinich said his colleagues had not even read. And after Furkan Dogan, a 19-year-old U.S. citizen armed with nothing more than a small video camera, was murdered execution-style by Israeli commandos on the Gaza flotilla, she signed the Poe/Peters letter to President Obama again touting Israel’s right to self-defense.

Echoing Tel Aviv’s rhetoric about the “existential threat” posed by Iran’s non-existent nuclear weapons programme, Congresswoman Schakowsky has long been lending her name to a raft of legislation targeting Tehran. In 1999, Schakowsky co-sponsored the Iran Nonproliferation Act. In 2001, she co-sponsored the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act Extension Act. She has also co-sponsored the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act, the Iran Sanctions Enabling Act, the Iran Counter-Proliferation Act, and the Iran Freedom Support Act. More recently, Schakowsky co-sponsored the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act of 2010, which a former CIA officer and political analyst described as “basically an act of war.”

“There’s more, much more, but you get the idea,” as Steve Sheffey, a pro-Israel political activist, put it in his Huffington Post defense of Schakowsky.

Her opponent, however, does not get the idea.

To Joel Pollak and his supporters, which include his Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz, Schakowsky is “too sympathetic” to Palestinians and the sanctions against Iran are “weak.”

But the GOP nominee is most concerned about Obama’s feeble efforts to coax Netanyahu to comply with international law by ceasing the building of Jewish settlements on occupied Palestinian territory. In a statement, Pollak called on Schakowsky to join him in “condemning the Obama administration’s ongoing attack on Israel.”

Among pro-Israelis there are concerns, however, that “efforts to transform support for Israel from a long-standing bipartisan national consensus into a divisive partisan wedge issue” could be counterproductive. “Ironically, by using Israel as a political football for partisan gain,” writes Sheffey, “Pollak’s supporters ignore the cardinal principle of pro-Israel advocacy: Support for Israel is and must remain bi-partisan.” According to Sheffey, Pollak has broken the Republican Party’s “friendly incumbent rule,” whereby pro-Israel opponents are expected to “disregard all other issues and vote solely based on Israel.”

Deeply concerned about the increasing use of support for Israel as a partisan issue in American domestic politics, Israel’s ambassador to the United States, Michael Oren, reminded everyone that “bipartisan support for Israel is a strategic national interest for the State of Israel.”

One rule that Pollak didn’t break, however, is the tacit agreement among both major parties to never expose how profoundly corrupt the political system really is.

In 2000, the FBI began wiretapping Congresswoman Schakowsky as part of a wider investigation into foreign espionage and the corruption of American public officials. “The epicenter of a lot of the foreign espionage activity was Chicago,” according to former FBI translator Sibel Edmonds, in an interview with The American Conservative magazine. “They needed Schakowsky and her husband Robert Creamer to perform certain illegal operational facilitations for them in Illinois.”

One would think that Joel Pollak would relish exposing Schakowsky’s entrapment by a female Turkish agent, revealed in Edmonds’ testimony under oath in a court case filed in Ohio. The problem for the aspiring pro-Israel legislator, however, is that the FBI investigation “started with the Israeli Embassy.”

And what choice does that leave American voters? As one frustrated commentator put it, there’s “not a dime’s worth of difference between the two parties.” Nowhere is that more true than when it comes to their corrupt bipartisan support for Israel.

*Maidhc Ó Cathail is a writer and educator. Born and raised in Ireland, he has been living in Japan since 1999. Inaddition to writing a monthly column for a popular Irish language magazine, his work is regularly published in Foreign Policy Journal, Islam Times, Khaleej Times, Salem-News.com and many more.

Ongoing Iran War Preparations? Arabian Sea: Center Of West's 21st Century War by *Rick Rozoff

The monumental expansion of arms sales and the buildup of naval and air power in the Arabian Sea region are unprecedented. They are also alarming to the highest degree.

A quarter of the world's nuclear aircraft carriers will soon be in the Arabian Sea.

The Nimitz class nuclear-powered supercarrier USS Abraham Lincoln arrived in the region on October 17 to join the USS Harry S. Truman Carrier Strike Group, which in turn had arrived there on June 18 as part of a regular rotation.

The Charles de Gaulle, flagship of the French navy, the country's only aircraft carrier and the sole non-American nuclear carrier, will soon join its two U.S. counterparts. The U.S. possesses half the world's twenty-two aircraft carriers, all eleven supercarriers (those displacing over 70,000 tons) and eleven of twelve nuclear carriers.

Regarding the unscheduled deployment of a second American aircraft carrier to the region, a CBS News report stated:

"Air strikes in Afghanistan are up 50 per cent and now Defense Secretary Gates has ordered a second aircraft carrier, the USS Lincoln, into the fight.

"Two carriers operating off the coast of Pakistan means about 120 aircraft available for missions over Afghanistan. And that's not counting U.S. Air Force missions flown out of Bagram and Kandahar." [1]

The countries bordering the Arabian Sea are Somalia, Djibouti, Yemen, Oman, Iran, Pakistan, India and the island nation of Maldives.

USS Lincoln and USS Truman are currently assigned to the Fifth Fleet's area of responsibility, which encompasses the Northern Indian Ocean and its branches and offshoots: The Arabian Sea, the Red Sea, the Gulf of Aden and the eastern coast of Africa south to Kenya, the Gulf of Oman and the Persian Gulf.

The nations on the Red Sea and Persian Gulf are, in addition to those mentioned above, Egypt, Eritrea, Israel, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Sudan and Bahrain, Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, respectively. 

The Fifth is the first fleet established in the post-Cold War period, recommissioned in 1995 after being deactivated in 1947. (Similarly, the Fourth Fleet, which is assigned to the Caribbean Sea and Central and South America, was reactivated two years ago after being decommissioned in 1950.)

It shares a commander and headquarters with U.S. Naval Forces Central Command (CENTCOM) at Manama, Bahrain, across the Persian Gulf from Iran. CENTCOM was the last regional military command launched by the Pentagon during the Cold War (1983) and its area of responsibility stretches across what has been referred to as the Broader Middle East from Egypt in the west to Kazakhstan, bordering China and Russia, to the east.

The Fifth Fleet and Naval Forces Central Command are jointly in charge of five naval task forces operating in and near the Arabian Sea which patrol several of the most strategic chokepoints on the planet: The Suez Canal linking the Mediterranean Sea, where the U.S. Sixth Fleet and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization's Operation Active Endeavor hold sway, to the Red Sea. The Bab Al Mandeb connecting the Red Sea with the Gulf of Aden. The Strait of Hormuz between the Gulf of Oman and the Persian Gulf.

Combined Task Force 150 (CTF-150) is a multinational naval group established in 2001 with logistics facilities in the Horn of Africa nation of Djibouti and operates from the Strait of Hormuz to the Gulf of Aden and past the Bab Al Mandeb to the Red Sea and south to the Indian Ocean nation of Seychelles. Last year the Pentagon secured a military facility in Seychelles, its second in an African nation, where it has deployed Reaper unmanned aerial vehicles (drones), PC-3 Orion anti-submarine and surveillance aircraft, and 112 Navy personnel. Other nations currently contributing ships and personnel to CTF-150 are Britain, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Pakistan, South Korea and Thailand. Recent participants also include Australia, Italy, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Portugal, Singapore, Spain and Turkey.

Combined Task Force 151 (CTF-151) was launched in January of 2009, operates in the Gulf of Aden and the Somali Basin and covers an area of 1.1 million square miles. Twenty nations are scheduled to participate in the U.S.-led task force and Britain, Canada, Denmark, France, the Netherlands, Pakistan, Singapore, South Korea and Turkey have already enlisted. Its commanders to date have been from the U.S., Britain, South Korea and Turkey.

Combined Task Force 152 (CTF-152) operates from the northern Persian Gulf to the Strait of Hormuz, between the areas of responsibility of CTF-150 and CTF-158, and is part of Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Combined Task Force 158 (CTF-158) operates in the northern-most part of the Persian Gulf, is also part of Operation Iraqi Freedom, and consists of British and Australian as well as U.S. ships. Its main tasks are to oversee Iraqi oil installations and to create an Iraqi navy under the Pentagon's control.

The U.S. has divided the world between six regional military commands and six navy fleets. The Arabian Sea is covered by three of the Pentagon's overseas military commands - Central Command, Africa Command and Pacific Command - to provide an indication of the importance attached to the region.

In addition to the Fifth Fleet's and Naval Forces Central Command's headquarters in Bahrain, Central Command also maintains command, forward deployment, air and training bases and facilities in Kuwait, Oman, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates in the Persian Gulf in addition to 56,000 troops and air, naval and infantry bases in Iraq.

Several months before the September 11, 2001 attacks in New York City and on the Pentagon, the U.S. signed an agreement with the small nation of Djibouti (with a population of 725,000) to take over a former French base, Camp Lemonnier, which is now a United States Naval Expeditionary Base hosting the Combined Joint Task Force - Horn of Africa, assigned to Africa Command since the latter was activated two years ago. The Combined Joint Task Force - Horn of Africa's area of responsibility takes in Djibouti, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Kenya, Seychelles, Somalia, Sudan, Tanzania, Uganda and Yemen, with the Indian Ocean nations of Comoros, Mauritius and Madagascar effectively included.

In early 2002 the U.S. deployed 800 special operations troops to Camp Lemonnier to conduct covert operations in Yemen across the Gulf of Aden from Djibouti. There are now in the neighborhood of 2,000 U.S. troops in the country and 3,000 French troops there in what has been described as France's largest overseas military base. In the beginning of this decade Germany deployed 1,200 troops to Djibouti along with forces from Spain and the Netherlands. Britain added troops in 2005.

In total, there are as many as 8-10,000 military personnel from NATO nations in Djibouti. The Pentagon has used Camp Lemonnier, the port of Djibouti and the country's international airport for attacks in Yemen and Somalia, and French troops in the country assisted Djibouti in its armed conflict with neighboring Eritrea in 2008. France uses the country to train its troops for the war in Afghanistan and the Pentagon used it to support the Ethiopian invasion of Somalia in 2006.

The U.S. Fifth Fleet ordinarily has one aircraft carrier, serving as the nucleus of a carrier strike group, assigned to it. With USS Lincoln joining USS Truman in the Arabian Sea this month it now has two. USS Lincoln is accompanied by a guided missile destroyer and "brings more than 60 additional aircraft to the theater in support of Operation Enduring Freedom." [2]

USS Truman's strike group includes four Aegis class destroyers equipped for Standard Missile-3 anti-ballistic missiles, a guided missile cruiser and the German frigate FGS Hessen. Carrier Wing 3 attached to the aircraft carrier includes three strike fighter squadrons, a Marine fighter attack squadron, and airborne early warning, electronic attack and helicopter anti-submarine squadrons.

Since passing though the Suez Canal on June 28 until late last month Carrier Wing 3 had "completed more than 3,300 aircraft sorties and logged more than 10,200 flight hours, with more than 7,200 of those hours in support of coalition ground forces in Afghanistan." [3] There are 7,000 sailors and marines attached to the USS Truman carrier strike group.

Beforehand, shortly after entering the Mediterranean Sea in May, USS Truman engaged in joint interoperability exercises in Marseille with its French fellow nuclear aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle. French warplanes landed on the Truman's deck and American ones on Charles de Gaulle's.

The French carrier was returned to port for repairs on the day it set sail for "a four-month mission to support the fight in Afghanistan," but "will recover lost time at sea and its itinerary is not likely to change."

Its new mission, the first since 2007, "is to take it to join the fight against piracy off Somalia in the Indian Ocean and the NATO mission in Afghanistan.

"The new mission of the ship is to join the fight against pirates that is taking place off the coast of Somalia in the Indian Ocean [where a] NATO mission is ongoing." [4] Nuclear aircraft carriers are a curious choice for contending with piracy.

The NATO deployment in question is Operation Ocean Shield, inaugurated in August of 2009 and extended to the end of 2012. Standing NATO Maritime Group 1 and Standing NATO Maritime Group 2, which have also visited Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates and participated in joint naval maneuvers with Pakistan on the eastern end of the Arabian Sea, rotate for the operation in the Gulf of Aden.

The U.S.'s Operation Enduring Freedom encompasses sixteen nations in all -  Afghanistan, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Cuba (Guantanamo Bay), Djibouti, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Jordan, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, the Philippines, Seychelles, Sudan, Tajikistan, Turkey and Yemen - and NATO's efforts parallel and reinforce the Pentagon's across the width of the Arabian Sea from the Horn of Africa to South and Central Asia.

At its summit in Istanbul, Turkey in 2004, NATO launched the Istanbul Cooperation Initiative to build military partnerships with the six member states of the Gulf Cooperation Council - Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates - and has conducted military exchanges and cooperation with them in the interim. [5] The United Arab Emirates has supplied NATO with troops for the war in Afghanistan and hosts a secret air base for the transit of troops and equipment to the war zone.

In May of 2009 French President Nicolas Sarkozy opened a military base in the United Arab Emirates, the first permanent French base in the Persian Gulf and the first overseas base in 50 years. Including a navy and air force base and a training camp, it was seen at the time as a show of force against Iran which contests the Abu Musa island in the Persian Gulf with the Emirates.

NATO forces also operate out of bases in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. The North Atlantic Alliance has launched several helicopter gunship attacks inside Pakistan since late last month and on September 30 killed three Pakistani soldiers.

There are 120,000 troops from almost 50 nations serving under NATO's International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan.

This year NATO has airlifted Ugandan troops to Somalia for the armed conflict there.

The Charles de Gaulle aircraft carrier en route to the Arabian Sea to support the war in that country as well for operations off the coast of Somalia was commissioned in May of 2001. Seven months later it sailed to the Arabian Sea to support Operation Enduring Freedom and the war in Afghanistan. On December 19 of that year Super Étendard attack jets and Rafale Ms fighters took off from its deck to conduct bombing and reconnaissance missions, in all over 140.

The following March Super Étendard and Mirage warplanes assigned to Charles de Gaulle carried out air strikes before and during the U.S.-led Operation Anaconda.

When the French carrier arrives in the Arabian Sea this month it will be accompanied by two frigates, an attack submarine and a refuelling tanker, 3,000 sailors and 27 aircraft: Ten Rafale F3 fighters, 12 Super Étendard  attack jets, two Hawkeye early warning planes and three helicopters.

According to the commander of the group, Rear Admiral Jean-Louis Kerignard, "the force would help allied navies fight piracy off the coast of Somalia and send jets to support NATO in the skies above Afghanistan.

"The ships will also train alongside allies from Saudi Arabia, India, Italy, Greece and the United Arab Emirates and make two stopovers at the French base in Djibouti before returning to France in February 2011." [6]

With USS Lincoln and the USS Truman carrier strike group, there will be three carriers, ten other ships, an attack submarine and as many as 150 military aircraft in the Arabian Sea. That is in addition to the five warships of the NATO Maritime Group 1 in theater, 14-15 ships with CTF-150 and perhaps dozens more with CTF-151, CFT-152 and CTF-158. A formidable armada covering the sea from one end to the other.

In the north of the Arabian Sea, the Gulf of Oman and into the Persian Gulf, on October 21 the U.S. announced a $60 billion arms deal with Saudi Arabia for advanced fighter jets, helicopters, missiles and other weaponry and equipment," according to a Western news agency "the largest US arms deal ever." [7]US military bases surround Iran

Last month the Financial Times disclosed that Washington plans to sell $123 billion worth of weapons to Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Oman and the United Arab Emirates. This January reports surfaced of White House plans to sell Patriot missile batteries to Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar and Saudi Arabia. The U.S. Navy also patrols the Persian Gulf with Standard Missile-3 interceptor missile-equipped warships. [8]

On the eastern end of the Arabian Sea, on October 23 Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced a $2 billion, five-year military aid package for Pakistan, and President Obama's scheduled visit to India next month is reported to include massive arms deals that will effect the U.S. supplanting Russia as India's main weapons supplier.

The monumental expansion of arms sales and the buildup of naval and air power in the Arabian Sea region are unprecedented. They are also alarming to the highest degree.

The West, America and its NATO allies, are escalating military operations across the area, from Asia to Africa to the Middle East. The theater of operations has recently broadened from South Asia to the Arabian Peninsula with drone and helicopter attacks in Pakistan and air and cruise missile strikes in Yemen.

A war that started at the beginning of the century is in its tenth year and gives every indication of being permanent.

Notes
1) CBS News, October 18, 2010
2) Navy NewsStand, October 17, 2010
3) Navy NewsStand, September 26, 2010
4) Associated Press, October 14, 2010
5) NATO In Persian Gulf: From Third World War To Istanbul
   Stop NATO, February 6, 2009
   http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2009/08/26/nato-in-persian-gulf-from-third-world-war-to-istanbul
6) Expatica, October 13, 2010
7) Deutsche Presse-Agentur, October 21, 2010
8) U.S. Extends Missile Buildup From Poland And Taiwan To Persian Gulf
   Stop NATO, February 3, 2010
   http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2010/02/03/u-s-extends-missile-buildup-from-poland-and-taiwan-to-persian-gulf

Stop NATOhttp://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato
Blog site:http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/
To subscribe, send an e-mail to:rwrozoff@yahoo.com
orstopnato-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
Daily digest option available.

*Rick Rozoff is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Barack Hussein Obama; You Missed The Bus by *Brig Asif Haroon Raja

On taking over the reins of power in January 2009 as 44^th President of USA, Barack Hussein Obama’s foremost priority should have been to clear the bloody mess created by his predecessor George W. Bush. The whole world at that time was stridently condemning policies of Bush concerning Muslims specific war on terror which had antagonized the Muslim world and had made Muslims born and bred in western countries perturbed. Saner elements within non-Muslim world had also expressed their resentment and censured brutality committed by US led coalition forces in Afghanistan and Iraq. While 9/11 had become controversial, so was the claim that Al-Qaeda was responsible for 9/11. Resort to blatant lies and deception by US-UK leaders to justify Iraq venture had angered the people. Seven years of war had given no joy but had made the world highly turbulent.

Butchery of Muslims of two occupied countries was at a massive scale and suffering of the living too painful. Image of USA as a sole super power had got badly damaged, anti-Americanism had peaked and inter-faith harmony had got discordant. Costly war had begun to have a toll on America’s vibrant economy and became a chief cause for onset of global recession. Barbaric acts together with injustices inflicted by occupation forces had triggered extremism within Muslim world and resistance forces in the two affected countries had bounced back with a vengeance. Occupation forces were at a loss how to stem the tide of extremism and backlash of militancy in the two theatres of war. The people in USA and in western countries had become wary of the war since white skinned soldiers were also getting killed and injured and social problems were on the rise. Bush had become the most despised president of USA. Glimpse of this pathological hatred was reflected in shoe-throwing episode in Baghdad. The shoe thrower instantly became a hero since he did what every Muslim wished to do.

It was owing to pent up frustration of Americans that they chose to elect a black man as their president for the first time. Obama was chosen since in his election campaign he had promised to bring a change. They wanted him to repair the damaged image and credibility of USA and to restore its position to pre-9/11 times. They sought security, better living conditions and an end to futile war which had been unleashed with depraved intentions and was seen as mother of all evils. The aggrieved Muslims who had virtually gone through hell expectantly looked towards him, with many mistakenly considering him to be a Muslim. They nourished hopes that he would not only terminate the bloody war but would also play a key role in resolving longstanding disputes of Palestine and Kashmir and thus restore inter-faith harmony.

With such high emotions and candles of hopes lit in every household all over the world, Obama was in an ideal situation to bring a real change by stopping the war forthwith and then going about winning the hearts and minds of people at home and abroad. Such acts would have catapulted his popularity sky high and correspondingly helped in reinstating prestige of USA. Militant forces in Iraq and Afghanistan would have welcomed his decision and allowed the occupation forces to return to their respective homes with dignity and honor. The only possible demand made by them would have been to carryout trial of Bush led neo-cons for war crimes. The US would have stood on a high moral ground to negotiate a mutually beneficial political settlement. By end 2009, the world would have become much peaceful and livable. Had Obama played a constructive role in resolving the two chronic disputes, he would have earned undying gratitude of the Muslims and America’s status as a fair super power been recognized.

Alas! Nothing of the sort happened since all this has fallen in the realm of idealism. Obama proved to be no better than Bush. Instead of bringing a change, he opted to pursue old policies and thus made the situation messier. In his exuberance to disrupt, dismantle and defeat Al-Qaeda and to tame Afghanistan, he increased the force level from less than 100,000 to 152000 in less than year’s time and extended the war into Pakistan under newly coined Af-Pak policy. This huge force today finds itself stuck in hellhole from where retrieval has become a real challenge. While hope of victory has dashed, even a face-saving formula for a graceful exit his become difficult.

As if roping in Pakistan at the behest of India was not enough, egged on by Israel Obama adopted a confrontational posture against Iran. Misled by hawks in Pentagon, State Department and CIA, he too encouraged covert operations against Pakistan, Iran and China. With hands full in two widely apart theatres of war, it was unwise to open so many fronts and antagonize the whole region. Instead of solving Kashmir and Palestine issues that is breeding extremism and terrorism, he preferred to keep the two darlings in good humor. Like his predecessor, he too is relying solely on force to eliminate terrorism and to keep the people of Afghanistan suppressed and subjugated. Like Bush, Obama also ignored lessons from history. He forgot that Afghans had humbled two super powers and Afghanistan had earned the name of ‘graveyard of empires’.

Since Obama after assuming power failed to exploit the God given opportunity of going down in history as a successful president of America like George Washington and Abraham Lincoln, he is now paying the price. Having missed the bus the situation has spun out of his control and he is not in a position to reverse the tide to his advantage. He seems to have run out of options since neither force nor negotiations is working. Apart from polarization between Democrats and Republicans, Obama Administration itself is sharply divided. There is also a cold war going on between Pentagon led by Robert Gates and State Department led by Hillary Clinton, with former trying to assert its authority. War merchants running defence industries have their own axe to grind and have become a powerful entity. Above all, influence of American Jews is all too pervasive in policy matters.

Obama’s rating at home has slumped from 68% in April 2009 to lowly 24% since he has so far not fulfilled any of the promises he made. Ill-famed Guantanamo Bay Prison which he promised to shut up by end 2009 is still functioning. US heavy borrowing from China has not scaled down and economy is not showing any signs of recovery. Banks are closing down at a fast rate and unemployment has soared to 9.6%. Much hyped healthcare program has run into snags. General public of America is constantly putting pressure on the government to stop the war and bring back the soldiers. Discussion on war crimes is also taking place in many circles of American society. In case situation in Afghanistan becomes ugly, demand for trials will become louder. All these developments are bound to have an impact on mid term elections scheduled on 2nd November in which 435 seats in House of Representatives, 37 seats of Senate and 38 governorships will be contested. It is predicted that Democrats hold on Congress would get weaker.

Seeing the writing on the wall that balance has tilted towards Taliban, the US is still trying to dictate terms to the Taliban. It wants them to surrender their arms and break their ties with Al-Qaeda. Whether the occupying forces pull out in 2011 or in 2014, the fact is the US cannot snatch victory out of the jaws of defeat. Considering that 521 ISAF soldiers lost their lives in 2009, 2010 has proved to be the deadliest since till 25 October 600 fatalities have taken place. It is anticipated that coming months may prove even more costly. While Taliban do not seek worldly comforts of life, they are used to hardships, and are adept in fighting prolonged guerrilla war, and do not fear death, hence they will not give up irrespective of the adverse circumstances. Legitimacy of their cause to fight for their homeland propels them to keep fighting. Coalition forces on the other hand deprived of a genuine cause and fighting a wrong war for wrong purposes at the wrong time are not convinced as to why they should sacrifice their lives.

Notwithstanding deplorable role of USA in playing a double game with Pakistan which it often mentions as a key ally, wicked role played by India and Israel needs no amplification. The pair is chiefly responsible for making the war on terror a failure and in getting US military bogged down in the quagmire of Afghanistan. However, sad part of the story is that the US leaders are still stretching their hands towards the duo which is sinking them, naively hoping that that it will pull them out. They continue to rely on the Indo-Israeli self-serving advices and are not prepared to trust Pakistan.

Obama is eagerly looking forward to his visit to India early next month and like his predecessors Bill Clinton and George W Bush, he will also lavishly toss out rich endowments into the waiting lap of India. If Pakistan is the key ally, Obama should have preferred visiting Pakistan and not India. When one gets so blinded by commercial interests as to fail to make a distinction between a friend and a foe, it is a sure recipe of disaster. Obama for sure has missed the bus.

*Brig Asif Haroon Raja, a Member Board of Advisors of Staff College and Armed Forces War Coursequalified, holds MSc war studies degree; a second generation officer, he fought epic battle of Hilli in northwest East Bengal during 1971 war, in which Maj M. Akram received Nishan-e-Haider posthumously. He served as Directing Staff Command & Staff College, Defence Attaché Egypt and Sudan and Dean of Corps of Military Attaches in Cairo. He commanded the heaviest brigade in Kashmir. He is lingual and speaks English, Pashto and Punjabi fluently. He is author of books titled ‘Battle of Hilli’, ‘1948, 1965 & 1971 Kashmir Battles and Freedom Struggle’, ‘Muhammad bin Qasim to Gen Musharraf’, Roots of 1971 Tragedy’; has written number of motivational pamphlets. Draft of his next book ‘Tangled Knot of Kashmir’ is ready. He is a defence analyst and columnist and writes articles on security, defence and political matters for numerous international/national newspapers/websites

Ekopolitik Sentez Masası:Hindistan ve Bombay Saldırıları

Ekopolitik Sentez Masası

Hindistan ve Bombay Saldırıları

5 Aralık 2008 Cuma

Murat Sofuoğlu: Hindistan’ın Bombay (Mumbai) şehrinde meydana gelen patlamalar kritik bir zamanda gerçekleşti. Bir yanda ABD’de ilk defa Afrika-Amerikan kökenli Barack ‘Hüseyin’ Obama başkanlığa seçildi, diğer yanda İslam dünyasının çeşitli yerlerinde meydana gelen çatışmalar hareketlilik arz etmeye başladı. Bununla birlikte Barack Obama’nın başkanlık seçim sürecinde Pakistan ve Afganistan ile ilgili beyanatları da dikkatlerimizden kaçmıyordu. Bunlara ek olarak Pakistan ve Hindistan arasında nükleer silahlanma mücadelesi de değerlendirmeler arasında yerini alması gereken bir değişken olarak karşımıza çıkıyor. Bunlardan öte takip edebildiğimiz kadarıyla ABD istihbaratıyla Pakistan istihbarat örgütü ISI arasında cereyan eden gerilimleri de göz önünde bulundurmamız gerekiyor. Pakistan’da Benazir Butto’nun suikasti, Pervez Müşerref sonrası hükümet değişikliğindeki geçiş döneminin pürüzlerinin boy gösterdiği bir dönemden bahsediyoruz.

İslam dünyasındaki gerilimlerden söz ederken, Hindistan’ın karşı kıyısında yer alan Somali’nin Aden Körfezi’nde yaşanan korsanlık faaliyetlerini de unutmamız lazım. Tüm bu gerilimlerin bir araya geldiği bir ortamda Bombay’da saldırılarla karşı karşıyayız. Tüm bunları anlamaya ihtiyacımız var. Bu bağlamda tüm bu çatışmaların ve saldırı eylemlerinin jeopolitik dengeler içerisinde nereye oturduğunun tespit edilmeye ihtiyacı olduğunu düşünüyoruz. Bugünkü sentez masası da bu gelişmeleri masaya yatıracak.

Yavuz Arslan Argun: Hindistan dünyada nüfus büyüklüğü olarak 2., toprak büyüklüğü itibariyle de 4. ülke. Çok uzun yıllar İngiliz sömürgesi olarak yaşadı; güneş batmayan imparatorluk denilen İngiltere dünyayı hem kendi adasından hem de Hindistan’dan idare etti. Hindistan dünyada İngilizlerin yönetim olarak idare ettikleri çok önemli bir ülkenin adı. Geçmişte İngiliz dışişleri ve Hindistan masası birlikte hareket edebilirse İngiliz politikası oluşurdu. Hindistan’daki İngiliz birimleri İngiltere devletinin politikalarının doğruluğunu test ederler. Bir siyasi, askeri veya ekonomik hareket ancak bu testin ardından İngiliz dışişleri tarafından gerçekleştirilirdi.

Murat Sofuoğlu: Yani İngiliz dış politikasının şekillenmesinde Hindistan çok önemli bir role sahip.

Yavuz Arslan Argun: Hindistan aynı zamanda Asya’nın yüksek platolarına, Afganistan’ın ve Pamir’in uzantısı olan Haydel geçidine varılan bir yer. Yani sıcak denizlerin yukarısındaki bölgelere büyük güçler ancak bu kanaldan inebilirler. Yani toprak olarak, coğrafya olarak ve jeopolitik olarak da Hindistan son derece önemli bir konuma sahiptir. Böyle ülkeler, dünya üzerindeki büyük güç merkezlerinin ilgisini çeker. Burayı tarihte Türkler idare etmiştir, Büyük Babür Türk devletini hatırlayalım. Daha sonraları İngiliz devleti güçlendikçe, sömürge nüfusunu arttırdıkça Hindistan üzerinde müessir olmuş ve bir yönetim kurmuş, Hindistan üzerinde yönetim kurunca, Hindistan’a inen tüm yolları ve platoları da kontrolü altına almış. Büyük Osmanlı Devleti de burada donanma ve ticaret gemileriyle yönetimlere dâhil olmak istemiş ancak pek müdahil olamamıştır. Şimdilerde ise dünyanın tek gücü konumunu sürdürmeye çalışan Amerika İngilizlerin uyguladığı politikaların devamı niteliğinde Hindistan üzerinde çalışıyor.

Diğer yandan günümüzde dünya ekonomi dengeleri içerisinde Çin ile Hindistan büyük bir yer teşkil ediyor. Buralar işaret edilmiş ülkelerdir. Nasıl işaret edilmiş ülkelerdir? İngilizlerin 1870’lerde yönetiminde bulunan başvekilleri Avrasya politikaları üzerinde ve özellikle Hindistan üzerinde ciddi niyetlerinin olduğunu belirtmişlerdir. Başvekil dünya hakimiyeti isteniyorsa Hindistan üzerinden Avrasya’ya ulaşmalıyız ve bunu deniz yoluyla başarmalıyız stratejisini ortaya koymuştur. Bu stratejiyi ortaya koyan ve de politika haline getiren Benjamin Disraeli’dir. Disraeli aynı zamanda Süveyş kanalının açılmasını planlayarak Hindistan’a ulaşılmasını sağlamıştır. Disraeli bu düşünceye varırken şunu söylüyor, “Burası benim atalarımın ülkeleri, buraları ele geçirebilirsek dünyayı ele geçirebiliriz.” Daha sonra bu stratejinin ünlü stratejist Brzezinski’nin Büyük Satranç Tahtası’na da geçtiğini biliyoruz..

Hindistan’da meydana gelen bu patlamayla ne hedefleniyor? Hindistan ne yaptı da böyle bir olayın içerisine sürükleniyor? Bu bir örtü hareketi midir? Hindistan’ın nükleer güç olması ne ifade ediyor? Bunları tartışmalıyız.

Yusuf Ergen: II. Dünya Savaşı’nda Hiroşima ve Nagasaki’ye atılan nükleer bombaların ardından dünya da hızlı bir şekilde nükleer silahlanma yarışı başlıyor ve uluslararası genel kabul gören meşru zemin arayışları çerçevesinde ülkeler bir üst hukuki anlayış çizgileri içerisinde nükleer silahsızlanma ilkesini benimsemek durumunda kalıyorlar. Hindistan ilk kez 1948 yılında Atom Enerjisi Yasası’nı yürürlüğe koyuyor ve 1962’te güncellenen Atom Enerjisi Yasası’na göre Hindistan Sivil ve Askeri nükleer tesislerini ayırıyor. Şimdilerde ise Hindistan’ın 18 askeri ve 12’si sivil olmak üzere toplam 30 yerde nükleer tesisi bulunmaktadır. Bölgede nükleer dengelerin oldukça hassasiyet içerdiğini belirtmek gerekiyor. Örneğin geçmişe baktığımızda 1969 yılında Rusya-Çin sınırında Uygur bölgesi olarak ta bilinen Ussuri Nehri’nin kıyı boyunda bulunan bölgede yaşanan çatışmalarda Rusya’nın nükleer silah kullandığına dair CIA raporları aradan 25 yılı aşkın bir süre geçtiği için yayınlanmış durumda. Bunun yanı sıra Henry Kissinger’in o dönem bu konuya oldukça önem verdiğini de Kissinger’ın son dönemlerinde yazdığı yazıların satır aralarında 1969 yılındaki gelişmelere atıflarda bulunmasından da anlayabiliriz.

Ben 1969 yılında yaşanan ve çok iyi bilinmeyen Rusya-Çin çatışmasını önemsiyorum. Algıladığım kadarıyla o dönemde dediğim gibi yaşanan bu kriz uluslararası meşruiyet zemini arayışları neticesinde tekemmül eden sivil amaçlı nükleer enerji kullanımının sınırlarının belirlendiği bir dönüm noktası olmuş. Yine aynı dönemlere baktığımızda Hindistan’ın 1974 yılında aldığı bir karara göre Hindistan nükleer enerjisini tamamen devlet kontrolünde kullanacağını ifade ediyor.

Ancak yakın zamana baktığımızda Temmuz 2008 yılında Hindistan meclisinden bir nükleer yasa geçirdi. Başbakan Manmohan Singh Temmuz ayında Hint Parlamentosu’nda tatminkar bir farkla güven oyu kazanmıştı. Singh oldukça zor bir süreç yaşamıştı. Çünkü sivil nükleer yasasının mecliste görüşülmeye başlanmasından önce Başbakan Singh’e karşı muhalefet, üç parlamenterin çekimser kalmaları yönünde rüşvet aldıklarını ileri sürerek, başbakanın istifasını talep etmişti. Bunun karşılığında hükümet yönetimdeki koalisyonun ve ABD ile yapılan sivil nükleer antlaşmanın mevcut durumdaki varoşlunu sağlama alarak 256’ya karşı 275 oyla oylamayı kazanmıştı. Bu sürecin sonunda ABD’li ve İngiliz finans portallarında çıkan yatırım yönlendirme haberlerini de manidar bir şekilde takip edebilme imkânı bulmuştuk. Diğer olayın önemine atfen bir ayrıntıyı daha paylaşmak istiyorum. Bu yatırım fonlarına yön göstermenin bir ifadesi olarak Donald Trump’ın oğlunun bile Hindistan’da gayrimenkul için 1 milyar dolar ayırdığı haberleri medyada yer almıştı.

Bombay saldırılarının olduğu günlerde Rusya Devlet başkanı Medvedev’in de Latin Amerika ülkelerine yaptığı ziyaret ve Venezüella ile yaptığı nükleer antlaşma beni düşündürüyor. Zira geçtiğimiz günlerde çevirisini yaparak ekopolitik.org web sitemizde yayınladığımız bir rapordan da hatırlanacağı gibi Pakistan Gizli Servisi ISI ile Amerikan İstihbarat Teşkilatı CIA’in girift ilişkileri, Hindistan’daki patlamalar neticesinde Hindistan’ın tüm faturayı Pakistan’a ve gizli servisi ISI’ye kesmesi beni hayli düşündürüyor.

Diğer yandan Murat Sofuoğlu’nun sentez masasının açış konuşmasını yaparken Obama’nın seçilmesinin dünya politik dengelerine yönelik üzerinde durduğu nokta perspektifinden bir şeyler daha söylemek istiyorum. 11 Eylül saldırıları öncesinde Clinton döneminin üzerine gelen Bush ve Bush’un realist bakış açısının ağırlığının 11 Eylül sonrası kaybolduğunu görüyoruz. 1973’ten beri üstel bir şekilde güç kazanan ABD’nin neocon ekibinin soğuk savaş sonrası kendilerine birincil düşman (küresel terör) olarak seçtikleri İslam coğrafyasına yönelik operasyonlar 11 Eylül sonrası politik zeminde realize olmaya başladı. Ama öncesinde bunun temelleri sağlam bir şekilde kurgulanıyordu. Örneğin Project for New American Century’nin yürüttüğü Amerikan Ordularının Yeniden İnşası Projesi, Yonah Alexander’ın teorileri üzerine geliştirilen küresel terörün Amerikan Ulusal Güvenliği için oluşturacağı tehdit algısı, Frank Gaffney’in başını çektiği İslamafobi gibi teoriden pratiğe evrilen süreçlerde terör meselesi tartışılıyordu ancak 'nükleer terör' konusu pek gündemde tutulmuyordu.

Amerikan kamuoyunu hazırlamaya yönelik olarak bir nükleer terör olabilir ihtimaline atfen bazı raporlar, programlar, haberler, filmler Amerikan kamuoyuna sunuluyordu. Zira iç içe geçmiş psikolojik eylemlerde doğru bilgiye ulaşmak devletlerin büyüklüğüyle alakalı bir durumdur.

Nükleer terör deyince ne anlıyoruz? Nasıl ki 11 Eylül’de kaçırılan uçakların dünya ticaret merkezine çarpmasının ardından Richard Perle, Beyaz Saray’ın arka kapısından çıkarken dönemin CIA başkanı George Tenet’e bunun hesabını Irak ödeyecek diyebiliyorsa, çanta içinde nükleer bomba taşıyan bir teröristin de günün birinde İran’ı zor durumda bırakabileceği ihtimali de olabilir diye düşünüyorum. Dolayısıyla Bombay’daki terörist saldırılarının küçümsenmeyecek bir öneme sahip olduğu kanaatindeyim.

Yavuz Arslan Argun: Clinton döneminde ABD’nin ‘yumuşak güç’ kullanımının ne kadar etkin olduğu herkes tarafından malum. Hollywood filmlerinde nükleer terörizmle alakalı filmlerin dönemsel olarak nitelik ve niceliğinin artması son derece manidar. Bu konunun Hollywood tarafından kamuoyuna yönelik bir tarafının olduğunu yazan Amerikalı yazar Frederick Forsyth’dır. Frederick Forsyth nükleer terörün nazariyesini yazmıştır. Kendisi bu konuyu 1968 yılında Nükleer Silahsızlanma Anlaşması’na atfen Dördüncü Protokol isimli kitabında işlemiştir.

Amerika’nın oldukça gelişmiş bir yönetişim anlayışı var ve konuları tüm birimleriyle ve tüm öğeleriyle ele alabiliyorlar. Peki Hindistan ne yaptı da böyle bir saldırıya maruz kaldı? Pakistan aslında iki büyük devletti. Bangladeş ve Pakistan’ın arasında öyle bir Hindistan var ki, parçalanmaya müsait, bu parçalanmanın haritalarını İngiliz Lordları zamanında çizmişler. Lord Arthur Balfour isimli ünlü İngiliz Lordu çizmiş. Doğu Pakistan-Batı Pakistan olarak Hindistan parçalansın diye. Bu ülkelerde çok kan aktı ve Bangladeş ile Pakistan bilinçli olarak fakirleştirildi.

Murat Sofuoğlu: Bombay’daki patlamalara geri dönecek olursam; Yusuf’un söylediği bağlamda örneğin Sovyetler Birliği döneminde Küba ile Sovyetlerin arasında bir ilişki var. Soğuk Savaş sonrası Rusya Güney Amerika’dan büyük ölçüde kopmuştu ama şimdilerde bu ilişkiler tekrar temerküz etmeye başladığını görüyoruz. Venezüella’da Chavez’in yükselişi, Bolivya’da Amerikan karşıtlığının yükselişi vs. Ve hatta Medvedev Venezüella’da olduğu dönemlerde yine medyaya yansıyan raporlara bakıyoruz ki, Rus Deniz Kuvvetleri Komutanıyla, Venezüella Deniz Kuvvetleri Komutanı ortak tatbikat yapıyorlar. İlk kez bir Rus Donanma Filosu Venezüella’yı ziyaret ediyor. İşte böylesi bir siyasi hareketlilik içerisinde Bombay’da patlamalar meydana geliyor. Patlamaların olduğu otelin adı da Taç Mahal. Taç Mahal ismi de manidar bir sembol olma özelliği taşıyor. Yavuz Bey’in söylediği gibi Babür İmparatoru Babür Şah’ın yaptırdığı anıtın ismini taşıyan bir otelde patlamalar meydana geliyor.

İslami kimliğe sahip olan Babür Şah’ı bir kenarda tutarsak, patlamaları üstlenen grubun adı da ‘Deccan Mücahidin’. Deccan Mücahidin ismini Hindistan’ın orta kısımlarının güneyinde yer alan Deccan Platosu’ndan alıyor. Saldırıları bu grubun yapıp yapmadığı farklı bir tartışma konusu ama, Müslüman bir grubun bunu yapmış olmasının gündeme gelmesi, Hindistan’da 200 milyon Müslümanın yaşadığını da değerlendirmelerimiz arasına katmamızı gerektiriyor. Diğer yandan Deccan Mücahidin’den başka radikal Müslüman gruplarda bu saldırıları üstlenmişler. Benim takip edebildiğim kadarıyla (Dindar Askerler), diğer bir örgüt Cayş-ı Muhammed Örgütü… Bunların hepsi Pakistan destekli örgütler. Hatta Cayş-ı Muhammed örgütünün 2001 yılında Hint Parlamentosu’na yapılan saldırılarda da suçlandığı biliniyor.

Hindistan ve Pakistan arasındaki gerginliği de göz önüne alırsak böyle bir atak sonrası gözlerin doğrudan Pakistan’a çevrilmesi normal diye düşünüyorum. Pakistan’da durumu bildiği için hemen bir açıklama yapma ihtiyacı hissetti ve “Bizi hemen suçlamayın, bizim saldırılarla bir ilişkimiz yoktur” dedi. İlginçtir ki, Bombay’a saldırıları gerçekleştirenler deniz yoluyla Hindistan’a giriş yapmışlar. Washington Post’ta yer alan bir analize göre saldırılar oldukça profesyonel ve bu saldırıların Hindistan içerisinde bir grup tarafından yapılma ihtimalinin zayıf olduğu ve ancak saldırıyı yapanların uluslararası bağlantılarının olacağı yönündeydi. Dolayısıyla olayın karakterinin Hindistan ile sınırlı olmadığı kesin.

Bir başka ilginç gelişme de, İngiltere Dışişleri Bakanı David Milliband’ın açıklamaları. Milliband, “Terörizm sadece batıya karşı yapılan bir savaş değil” dedi. Yani Milliband, bakın Hindistan’ı da terör vuruyor diyor. Sadece New York’u, Madrid’i, Londra’yı, İstanbul’u değil, radikal İslamcılar Hindistan’ı da vuruyor, diyor. Sadece “Batı Dünyası” tehdit altında değil bakın Hindistan’da böyle bir tehdit altında mesajı veriliyor. Bu bana göre İslam dünyasının Hindistan’a ulaşan coğrafyasında bir sınırlama opsiyonunu da güçlendiriyor. Dolayısıyla İslam dünyasına Hindistan’dan da gelebilecek bir baskı ihtimalini de göz önünde bulundurmak gerekiyor.

Yavuz Arslan Argun: Sri Lanka’da bulunan Tamil Gerillalarının bazı yabancı istihbaratlardan eğitim aldıklarına dair bilgilerin olduğunu burada söylemek isterim. Dünya bunu kabul etmiş durumdadır ve o bölge de en faal yapılanma Tamil Gerillaları’dır. Bölgede ki bu tür marjinal eylemler Tamil Gerillaları’ndan da neşet edebilir.

Murat Sofuoğlu: Benim bir sorum olacak. New York’ta, Londra’da, İstanbul’da, Madrid’te meydana gelen terör saldırılarından bahsettik. Kamuoyu tarafından birincil olarak algılanan bu tür saldırıların terör eylemi olduğu ve marjinal grupların aşırılılıkları olarak nitelenmesi; ancak benim ikincil olarak aklıma gelen ve sormak istediğim boyutu, istihbaratlar arasındaki mücadeleler. Siz bu konuda ne düşünüyorsunuz?

Yavuz Arslan Argun: Deccan Mücahidin gibi terör eylemi yapan yapılanmalar belli merkezlerde yetiştiriliyor. Mesela El Kaide’nin başındaki adamın zamanında CIA tarafından yetiştirildiğini artık herkes biliyor. Ladin’in Rusya-Afganistan mücadelesinde CIA’in Ladin’i desteklediği de biliniyor. Tabi Ladin daha sonraları kontrolden çıkan bir yapıya bürünüyor. Huntington’ın, Medeniyetler Çatışması teorisini hayata geçirmek isteyen güçler olduğu ortada; İslam dünyasıyla savaş düşüncesi dünya politik dolaşımında. Ladin bombalanıyor, peşine ordular takılıyor, türlü kumpaslara düşürülüyor ama bir türlü yakalanamıyor.

Hindistan, Müslüman ve Hindu grupların zaman zaman gerginlik yaşadığı bir yer. Ama bugün Cumhurbaşkanı’nı Müslümanlar arasından çıkarabilen, ekonomik gücünü dengeye oturtmuş, güzel bir yönetimle huzur sağlamış bir ülke ve şu anda dünyada güç dengelerinden birini temsil ediyor. Hindistan büyük sermaye hareketlerinin de havuzu olma potansiyelinden dolayı da güçlü konumda.

Amerika, Pakistan’daki nükleer gücü Pakistan’ın elinden almak istiyor. Pakistan İslam ülkeleri arasında nükleer gücü olan ender ülkelerden. Şimdilerde işte İran nükleer güç elde etmeye çalışıyor. Pakistan yönetimi ise daha yolun başında, Zülfikar Ali Butto’nun damadı Zerdari biraz yönetimde acemilikler yaşıyor. Zaten Zerdari’de değişik suçlar dolayısıyla Pakistan’dan sınır dışı edilmiş; sonra tekrar geri döndü.

İslamabad şu anda kaynayan bir kazan. Şu anda Pakistan için en tehlikeli konuda Pakistan İstihbarat Teşkilatı’nın çökmüş olması. Bir ülkede istihbarat teşkilatı çökmüş ise, o ülke parçalanma tehlikesiyle karşı karşıya demektir. Yani eğer Pakistan’la ilgili bir operasyon yapılacaksa tam da bu anda yapılması gerekirdi diye düşünenlerin çıkabileceği bir durumda Pakistan.

A.Tarık Çelenk: ABD’de yayınlanan 2025 İstihbarat Görünümü Raporu’nda Çin ve Hindistan’a çok önem veriliyor ve bu ikilinin ittifakı senaryosu geniş yer alıyor. Çin ve Hindistan’ın insan sermayesi olarak da oldukça güçlü bir pozisyonda oldukları göz önünde bulundurulursa ve tarihsel kodlarını aşarak eğer bir ittifak oluşturabilirlerse batı dünyasına karşı büyük bir aks oluşturabilirler. Bu ittifaka Rusya’yı da eklerseniz, sarmalın boyutları biraz daha büyümüş olur. Hatta daha ileri gideyim, batı dünyası böyle bir ittifaka engel olabilmek için Hindistan’ı bile parçalamayı göze alabilir.

Yavuz Arslan Argun: Çin-Hindistan-Rusya ve bölgenin diğer etkin ve aktif ülkelerini de bu ittifaka ilave edecek olursanız batı dünyası için çok büyük bir kırılma noktası olabilir tabi. Ancak Hindistan’ın parçalanması oldukça güç bir durum. Hindistan’ın 200 milyon Müslüman nüfusunun hepsi bir yerde toplanmış değil. Değişik gruplar Hindistan’ın geneline dağılmış durumda.

Murat Sofuoğlu: Bombay saldırılarında bir Yahudi merkezinin vurulması da oldukça manidar. Çünkü ABD’de Yahudi lobisi bu olaya binaen yeni seçilen başkan Obama üzerinde İsrail politikaları konusunda baskısını artırabilir.

A Tarık Çelenk: Ancak şunu da unutmamak gerekir. Obama seçim kampanyası sürecinde bile Irak’tan çekilecek misiniz sorularına, “Benim ilk hedefim Pakistan” yönünde cevaplar vermişti. Diğer yandan dünyada yaşanan bir ekonomik kriz var. Bu kriz şimdiye kadar yaşananlardan çok farklı ve büyük politik değişimlerin olacağının öncü sinyallerini içeriyor. Örneğin 1929 Krizi’nden sonra nasıl ki ulus-devlet yapıları güç kazandı. Ya da Altı Gün Savaşları’ndan birkaç yıl sonra Petrol krizi patlak verdi. Şimdiki ekonomik krizde Asya’da, Avrasya’da ve Yakın-Uzak Doğu’da bir takım politik dengelere yansıyabilir diye düşünüyorum.

Yavuz Arslan Argun: Evet oldukça önemli bir noktaya değindiniz. 1929 Krizi’nin politik yansımaları önemli bir konu. Mesela o dönemde Almanya’da yönetim değişti ve Hitler gibi birinin çıkmasına neden oldu. Biliyoruz ki, Hitler ile Stalin arasında bir anlaşma vardı; Avrasya ve kapısı Afganistan… İsterseniz sentez masasını sizinde üzerinde durduğunuz noktaya işaret ettiğinden Brzezinski’nin “Büyük Satranç Tahtası” kitabının önsözünü buraya alıntılayarak bitirelim…

“Avrasya yaklaşık olarak 500 yüzyıl önce, kıtaların siyasi olarak etkileşimde bulunmaya başlamasıyla birlikte, dünya iktidarının merkezi olmuştur. Avrasya’da yaşayam insanlar, farklı biçimlerde, farklı zamanlarda- her ne kadar bu çoğunlukla Batuı Avrupa bölgesinden de olsa- dünyanın diğer bölgelerine nüfuz etmiş egemen olmuş, bu süreçte bu özel konuma erişen Avrasya devletlerinden her biri, dünyanın beşiktarı olma ayrıcalığının keyfini sürmüştür.

20.yüzyılın son on yılı, dünya meselelerinde tektonik bir değişime şahit oldu. Tarihte ilk kez, Avrupalı olmayan bir güç Avrupa ilişkilerinin başhakemi olmakla kalmadı, aynı zamanda dünyanın en büyük gücü olarak belirdi. Sovyetler Birliği’nin başarısızlığı ve çöküşü, Batı Yarıküre’denbir gücün, Amerika Birleşik Devletleri’nin, tek başına ve aslında gerçek anlamıyla ilk küresel güç olarak hızlı yükselişinin son hamlesiydi.

Ancak, Avrasya jeo-politik önemini yitirmemiştir. Avrasya’nın batı bölgesi Avrupa, halen dünya siyasetinin ve ekonomik gücün pek çok yönden merkezi olmaya devam ederken, doğu bölgesi Asya da yakın zamanlarda ekonomik büyümenin ve yükselen siyasi nüfuzun önemli bir merkezi olmuştur. Bundan dolayı, bütün dünya ile uğraşan Amerika’nın karmaşık Avrasya iktidar ilişkileriyle nasıl baş ettiği sorusu ve özellikle baskın ve rakip bir Avrasya iktidarının ortaya çıkışını engelleyip engelleyemeyeceği noktası Amerika’nın küresel üstünlüğünü kullanma kapasitesine bağlı kalmaktadır.

Bunun sonucu olarak, iktidarın çeşitli yeni boyutlarını- ticaret ve finansa ilaveten, teknoloji, iletişim ve enformasyon-geliştirmenin yanı sıraAmerikan dış politikası jeo-politik merkezli olmayı sürdürmeli ve Avrasya’daki nüfuzunu Amerika’nın siyasi hakem olduğu kalıcı kıtasal dengeyi yaratmak için kullanmalıdır.

Bu nedenle Avrasya, küresel üstünlük mücadelesinin oynandığı satranç tahtasıdır ve mücadele jeostratejiyi, yani jeopolitik çıkarların stratejik idaresini de içerir. 1940’lı yıllar kadar yakın zamanlarda Adolf Hitler ve Joseph Stalin (o yılın kasım ayındaki gizli görüşmelerde), Amerika’nın Avrasya’dan dışlanması gerektiği konusunda açıkça anlaştılar. Her ikisi de Avrasya’yı kontrol edenin dünyayı kontrol edeceğine inanıyordu…….” <sup>1

1</sup> BRZEZİNSKİ, Zbigniev, (1997) : Büyük Satranç Tahtası: Amerikanın Önceliği ve Bunun Jeostratejik Gerekleri, İnkılâp Kitapları, İstanbul, Çeviren: Yelda Türedi…  

India on the Path of Aggression by *Sajjad Mujtaba

After learning positive lessons from the past conflicts, especially World War I and World War II, in the modern era of new trends like renunciation of war as a state policy, peaceful settlement of disputes and economic development, it is expected that unlike the non-state actors, state actors will behave with responsibility when controversy arises between them or two countries over any issue. Quite contrarily, Indian irresponsible civil and military leaders are still acting upon aggressive policy towards Pakistan and China.

In this connection, Indian present Army Chief General VK Singh has said on October 15, 2010 that China and Pakistan posed a major threat to India’s security, while calling for a need to upgrade country’s defence. Notably, General Singh after taking over the charge on March 30 had said in his first strategic statement, “Indian Army is well prepared to face any threat from China.” Before him, Indian former Army Chief General Deepak Kapoor had vocally revealed on December 29, 2009 that Indian Army “is now revising its five-year-old doctrine” and is preparing for a “possible two-front war with China and Pakistan.”

While India is no match to China in conventional and nuclear weapons, but the statements of its two army chiefs clearly show that Indian rulers are ready to go even to the extent of war against Beijing. That is why India’s war-mongering policy continues against China.

Notably, in May 1998, when India detonated five nuclear tests, the then Defense Minister George Fernandes had declared publicly that “China is India’s potential threat No. 1.” India which successfully tested missile, Agni-111 in May 2007, has been extending its range to target all the big cities of China.

As regards Indian new military build up against China, on May 31 last year, after 43 years, New Delhi re-opened its Daulat Beg Oldi (DBO) airbase in northern Ladakh, which overlooks the strategic Karakoram Pass and is only 8 km south of the Chinese border-Aksai Chin area.

India has also erected more than 10 new helipads and roads between the Sino-Indian border. In this context, Defence Ministry planners are working on building additional airfields and increasing troops—raising two new mountain divisions to be deployed along the 4,057-kilometer Line of Actual Control (LAC). New Delhi has also announced to develop immediately 1,100 kms of strategic roads on the Indo-Tibetan border.

With the help of Israel and America, on 26 February 2008, India conducted its first test of a nuclear-capable missile from an under sea platform after completing its project in connection with air, land and sea ballistic systems.

On May 10, 2009, Indian Navy Chief Admiral Sureesh Mehta had disclosed that New Delhi “will soon float tenders to acquire six submarines”. Mehta also accused Beijing and explained that the “Indian Navy would keep a close watch on the movements of Chinese submarines which are operating out of an underground base in the South China Sea” and “wish to enter the Indian Ocean”. However, under the pretension of Chinese threat, Washington, New Delhi and Israel are plotting to block the sea lanes of the Indian Ocean for their joint strategic goals.

It is notable that in order to conceal its covert activities, India has always blamed China for backing Maoist uprising. In this respect, instead of addressing the root causes of the Maoist uprising, Indian government has recently intensified its blame game against China, alleging for supplying arms to these insurgents.

Besides, peace-loving country like China, Pakistan is also particular target of India’s aggressive policy. In this regard, during the terrorist’s attack on the Indian parliament and during the Kargil crisis, Indian rulers had left no stone unturned in intimidating Islamabad through war-like approach coupled with concentration of troops on the Pak-Indian border.

It is mentionable that in the aftermath of the Mumbai carnage of November 26, 2008, New Delhi again acted upon aggressive policy. In wake of a continued rising tension between the two nuclear states regarding the culprits of Mumbai tragedy, Pakistan proved itself as a responsible state actor. On February 12, 2009, Islamabad submitted its report to India after lodging FIR against the nine suspects and taking six accused persons into custody. Pakistan’s positive behaviour was greatly appreciated by the foreign officials and media, while on the other side, New Delhi along with its media anchors took it as a surprise because India has, itself, been acting upon a reckless policy regarding Pakistan which is still being pursued through a threatening style.

However, since November 26, 2008, setting aside our ruler’s views that non-state actors were linked to the Mumbai mayhem, India’s blindly rejection of Islamabad’s offer of joint investigation, various contradictory statements of Indian military and civilian leadership such as calling Pakistan the epicenter of terrorism, emphasizing to hand over the fugitives to New Delhi, take action against them inside Pakistan, terrorism is state policy of Islamabad and all options are open for India including military one—deployment of Indian military troops across the international border have shown that India is a reckless state actor. Despite Islamabad’s optimistic reaction, India had not ruled out surgical strikes on selective targets of our country.

The fact of the matter is that Islamabad’s realistic reply has proved, without any doubt, that some non-sovereign entities in Pakistan, India and even in some western countries had planed Mumbai catastrophe, but New Delhi wanted to unilaterally blame Islamabad in that respect in order to conceal Indian culprits because its real anti-Pakistan designs would be exposed through a genuine probe. In that regard, Islamabad also raised 30 questions in the report, reciprocally seeking information about Indian officials involved in Malay villages and Samjotha Express blasts in which Indian mastermind Lt. Col Srikant Purohit was found guilty in targeting Muslims and details on the death of Indian Anti-terrorist Squad Chief Hemant Karkare during Mumbai tragedy.

Question arises as to why there is no international pressure by the sole superpower or UN on Indian government to handing over Lt. Col. Purohit, other similar criminals and especially Ajmal Kasab to Pakistan. And why India avoided joint probe in this serious matter. In fact, India has only been exploiting the Mumbai events to fulfill some covert aims against our country. First, New Delhi wants to divert the attention of US President Barack Obama from the thorny issue of Kashmir as earlier he had recognised an inter-relationship between war against terrorism in Afghanistan and this dispute. Second, India wants to use delaying tactics in relation to the composite dialogue or any result-oriented talk in resolving any issue with Pakistan. Third, New Delhi intends to continue creating unrest in Pakistan by supporting insurgency in Balochistan and Pakistan’s other regions from Afghanistan where it has established a terror-structure with the help of Indian army and intelligence agency, RAW. Fourth, India, with the backing of America, wants to contain China with a view to thwarting Sino-Pak cooperation, especially in the Gwadar seaport.

The most alarming point, however, is that Indian all clandestine designs as part of its aggressive policy are not only directed against Pakistan and China but also against Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Nepal and Bangladesh. There is no doubt India’s aggressive policy will ultimately weaken the federation of India itself as non-state actors or insurgents are present almost in every state of India. Nevertheless such an aggressive policy will further embolden Hindu terrorists who already keep on massacring Muslims and Christians intermittently.

In November 2010, President Obama will visit India to sign a number of agreements with New Delhi. Most likely India is going to ask purchase of C-17 and F35 aircrafts along with latest defence-related equipments from the US. It seems that America will further encourage India in its hot pursuit policy in one or the other way. In fact, while playing an opportunist role, India wants to extract maximum benefits from the US.

It is the right hour that Obama should take cognizance of the fact that Indo-US defence pact is likely to initiate a dangerous arms race in the region as China and Pakistan will be compelled to give similar response to New Delhi. American president should know that Indian regional hegemonic designs are a potent threat to the global peace. US president must take serious notice of Indian gross human rights violations in Kashmir, against Maoists, Christians, Muslims and Sikhs. Washington must also force India to resolve Kashmir dispute with Pakistan for the sake of regional peace.

*Sajjad Shaukat is a regular writer on international affairs and is author of the book: US vs Islamic Militants, Invisible Balance of Power: Dangerous Shift in International Relations.

Israel Is The Real Threat! Interview with Jeffrey Blankfort

Interview by Kourosh Ziabari*

Jeffrey Blankfort is an American photojournalist, radio producer and Middle East analyst. He is a well-known pro-Palestinian activist whose articles and writings have appeared on Counter Punch, Voltairenet, Palestine Think Tank, Dissident Voice and many other publications.

He currently hosts radio programs on KZYX in Mendocino, CA and KPOO in San Francisco. Blankfort was formerly the editor of the Middle East Labor Bulletin and co-founder of the Labor Committee of the Middle East. In February 2002, he won a lawsuit against the Zionist organization Anti-Defamation League (ADL) which was found to have been spying on the American citizens critical of Israel and its expansionistic policies.

Jeffrey joined me in an exclusive interview to discuss the influence of Israeli lobby on the decision-makers of the U.S. government, Israel’s illegal, underground nuclear program, the prospect of Israeli – Palestinian conflict and the imminent threat of an Israeli strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities.

Blankfort is quite outspoken in his criticism of the apartheid regime of Israel and believes that Israel is the most immediate threat to the future of our planet.

Kourosh Ziabari: In your article “The Israel Lobby and the Left: Uneasy Questions”, you elaborately explore the dominance of Israeli lobby over the U.S. administration and cite good examples of the influence of well-off Zionists on the multinational companies and mainstream media in America. My question is that, what are the root causes of this enormous power and immense wealth which the Zionists have possessed?
How did the Jews take over the vast resources of power and money that has made them capable of framing, modifying and overturning the political equations in the United States?

Jeffrey Blankfort: That question requires a long and complicated answer. In short, an important, well organized segment of the American Jewish community emerged after World War II that has been dedicated to the establishment and prospering of a Jewish state in historic Palestine in which the lives and well being of the indigenous Palestinian Arabs were of no consequence.

That this segment did not and has never represented the majority of American Jews has been more than been made up for by its concerted activity on Israel’s behalf in every critical sector of U.S. society and at every level of the nation’s political life. Its success would not have been possible, however, were it not for the fact that within its ranks have been a sizeable number of wealthy Jewish businessmen who have been quite willing to expend the funds necessary to either purchase the support of the U.S. Congress as well as virtually all of the state legislatures or intimidate Israel’s would-be critics into silence.

Well before the birth of the first Zionists, Jewish bankers and capitalists had established themselves in Europe and the United States so it was not surprising that a number of them, beginning with Lord Rothschild in the early part of the century, became supporters of the Zionist project. Now, far and away, they make up the largest segment of individual donors to both political parties.

The media, as could be expected, was one of its primary targets, and that avowedly pro-Israel interests, although not exclusively Jewish, such as Rupert Murdoch, now thoroughly dominate it at every level is, unfortunately proved on a daily basis.

While there should be no question that this Israel support network, euphemistically described as a “lobby,” has been a major force in shaping U.S. Middle East policies overall, and the determinant factor in dealing with the Israel-Palestine conflict, its power has its limits. While it was able, through its agents in the White House and the Pentagon, to push the U.S. into a war on Iraq, it has yet to get Washington to bomb Iran or, apparently, to sanction an Israeli attack on its nuclear facilities. It is clear that there are important elements within the Pentagon as well as the intelligence agencies which know that an attack by either the U.S. or Israel on Iran would more likely than not lead to a global catastrophe.

KZ: In your articles, you’ve alluded to the conflicts and struggles between the U.S. and Israel administrations during the past decades in which the U.S. Presidents, starting from Richard Nixon, tried to curb the expansionistic policies of Israel and bring about an improved living condition for the oppressed nation of Palestine. Should you believe that there have been such efforts on the side of U.S. administration, what has led to their failure, having in mind that they’ve repeatedly proclaimed their commitment to the security of Israel?

JB: There has not been the slightest interest on the part of any US president, I suspect, in improving the living conditions for the Palestinians. Halting Israeli expansion and getting Tel Aviv to withdraw from all the territories it conquered in 1967 has been seen as being in the U.S. national interest.

All the past efforts have failed because none of the presidents have been willing to spend the domestic political capital that would be necessary to force an Israeli withdrawal and particularly so when they know their efforts will be opposed by the overwhelming majority of both houses of Congress irrespective of party affiliations as well as by the Zionist dominated media.

The only one who made a serious effort and who was willing to confront the Zionist network and Congress was George Bush Sr., when he denied Israel its request for $10 billion in loan guarantees in 1991 and again in 1992 but even he was eventually forced to surrender.

KZ: Israelis are used to employing the label anti-Semitism to defame and vilify whoever dares criticize their belligerent, aggressive policies and actions. They accuse whoever criticizes them of being anti-Semitist. This makes the politicians and opinion-makers hesitant and demoralized in talking of Israel negatively. Is there any solution to reveal the futility of anti-Semitism label and educate the public that the criticism of Israel is different from criticizing Judaism?

JB: The allegation of “anti-Semitism” leveled against critics of Israel does not carry the weight it once did but it still is extremely effective, particularly, when the accused is employed by the mainstream media as we have seen recently in the case of Helen Thomas, Octavia Nasr and Rick Sanchez, and in the film industry which has long been a Zionist bastion and which was brought into existence by Jews in the last century, although none at the time were Zionists.

The power of the accusation of anti-Semitism to bring public figures to their knees will continue to exist until there is a sufficient number of prominent Americans who are willing to challenge it. When that will be I won’t begin to speculate.

KZ: Although undeclared, it’s confirmed by the Federation of American Scientists that Israel possesses up to 200 nuclear warheads. Being a non-signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Israel has never allowed the IAEA to probe into its nuclear arsenal. We already know about the destiny of Mordecai Vanunu who swapped his freedom with the expression of truth. What’s your viewpoint about the destiny of Israel’s nuclear program? Will Tel Aviv continue enjoying immunity from responsibility?

JB: As long as the Zionist support network controls Congress and as long as no American president as the courage to even mention the existence of Israel’s nuclear weapons, and while the U.S. continues to hold the purse strings to the UN, Israel will continue to enjoy both immunity and impunity. Had the leadership of the now non-existent anti-nuclear movement in the US, like the “peace movement” not been also Zionist-dominated, there might have been some debate on the issue but because it was, the subject was considered off limits.

KZ: Let’s turn to Iran. Iran’s is being portrayed by the U.S. mainstream media in a distorted and hypocritical way. Many Americans who even hadn’t heard the name of Iran before are now exposed to a horrifying and dreadful image of the country presented to them by the Zionist-led media outlets. They aren’t aware of the historical civilization of Iran and its unique cultural, social features. How is it possible to unveil the concealed realities of Iran for the Americans who don’t find the proper opportunities to get familiarized with the misrepresented Iran?

JB: Most American would have a problem finding Iran or any other country in the Middle East, or for that matter, anywhere in the world on a map. They are, for the most part, what can be called “geographically challenged,” as well as historically challenged. There is no antidote to that on the horizon which is why Washington is able to get away with making war on countries and peoples that have never done them harm. If there was a military draft as there was during the Vietnam War, neither the war in Iraq or Afghanistan would have gone on as long as they have and there would be opposition to an attack on Iran.

When Nixon cleverly halted the draft of 18-year olds in the early 70s, that took the backbone out of the anti-war movement and that is the reason that as hard pressed as the U.S. is today to maintain an army large enough to fight multiple wars, Washington will not bring back the draft. Hiring private contractors became the alternative. Without the fear of 18-year olds that they will be taken into the army, there is no anti-war movement and there is none worthy of the name at this moment in the United States.

KZ: Many people around the world have come to believe that the media in the United States are unrestrictedly free and can express whatever they want to, without any impediment or obstruction imposed on them by the administration. It’s almost accurate to say that the U.S. government does not have any direct involvement in the media-related affairs; however, there seems to be an implicit pressure on the media not to cross the red lines and violate the unwritten laws, including the criticism of Israel. Can you elaborate on this more precisely?

JB: It is not the government that prevents criticism from Israel in the media but fear of the repercussions that are guaranteed to follow any genuine criticism be it written or in cartoon form in the U.S. media, even when that criticism is leveled by a Jewish journalist. There are several organizations, most prominently the Anti-Defamation League, CAMERA, and Honest Reporting which are able to unleash at a moment’s notice a torrent of emails and letters to the editor, and in certain cases, visits to the offices of an offending newspaper, to make sure those in the media know what they can and cannot write. Since there is no corresponding pressure from Israel’s critics in the public, most editors choose to avoid a fight.

There was a time when a number of columnists in the mainstream press did write critically of Israel and got away with it. But that was 20 years ago and they are no longer around

KZ: As the final question, what’s your prediction for the future of Israel? Will it continue to determine the U.S. foreign policy and rule the American politicians? Is it capable of maintaining the blockade of Gaza? After all, will Israel succeed in surviving politically?

JB: As long as Israel’s supporters, or agents in the U.S., are able to control the U.S. Congress and intimidate whoever happens to be president and as long as those same forces dominate the media there will be no change in the U.S. or in the situation in Gaza. The Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement, while slowly growing in the U.S., does not have the intensity that it has elsewhere and its targets are limited to what Israel and U.S. companies do in the West Bank so, realistically, there is unlikely to be any meaningful pressure coming from the U.S.

What Israel does, however, may produce changes that are unpredictable at the moment. Having twice been defeated by Hezbollah, Israeli officials keep threatening another war on Lebanon and since the U.S., Europe and the UN have let them get away with all their previous wars on Lebanon, they are likely to try again.

Unlike the Palestinians, the Lebanese are able and willing to aggressively fight back as the Israeli soldiers know all too well, from their resistance to occupation and their halting of the vaunted Israeli wehrmacht in 2006. Should Israel find a way to attack Iran, the repercussions from that might be sufficient to send Israel on the road to what will ultimately be viewed as self-destruction. At the moment, thanks to the unconditional backing by the U.S. for all it crimes, and given its arsenal of nuclear weapons, I consider Israel to be the most immediate threat to the future of the planet.

Kourosh Ziabari is an Iranian freelance journalist and media correspondent. His articles and interviews haveappeared on a number of media outlets and news websites including Tehran Times, Press TV, Global Research and Foreign Policy Journal and

Book Review by *Ed Warner-The Neoconservative Agenda and The National Interest of Israel

History is full of examples of a determined minority prevailing over a more passive majority. A case in point is the neoconservative effort to bring the United States into war with Iraq largely for the protection of Israel. Despite the dubious reasons the neoconservatives advanced — Iraq has WMDs, ties to al-Qaeda — they managed to overcome the resistance of the military, the State Department and CIA partly by infiltrating them for their own ends. As the book title suggests, much of this was done in the open, a transparent cabal.

The cabal is described in convincing detail by author Stephen Sniegoski, who, somewhat retiring, lets the neoconservatives tell much of it in their own words — and what words! full of the passion of their endeavor: “Creative destruction is our middle name:” “precise military action against Hezbollah and Syria for as long as it takes without regard to mindless blather about proportionality;” “There is no middle way for Americans. It is victory or the holocaust;” “Could World War Two have been won by Britain and the United States if the two countries did not have it in them to firebomb Dresden and nuke Hiroshima and Nagasaki — the willingness to inflict mass casualties on civilians?” Like Gaza? we might ask.

The neoconservatives, to be sure, had significant help from the top. President Bush, not well versed in foreign affairs; Vice President Cheney, basically a neoconservative himself; and Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, who wanted to try out his new concept of a sleek, swift high tech attack, which fitted nicely with neocon plans. Much of the media was also supportive, like the New York Times. Columnist Tom Friedman wrote: “The war is the most important, liberal, revolutionary democracy-building project since the Marshall Plan.” Poor George Marshall, who, as they say, must be rolling over in his grave.

But if the neoconservatives knew what they wanted, they were less sure of the consequences, indifferent really. That point was made by General Anthony Zinni observing the neoconservative reaction to the chaos in Iraq following the war: “Maybe some strong man emerges, it fractures, and there really is a Kurdish state. Who cares? There’s some bloodshed and it’s messy. Who cares? I mean we’ve taken out Saddam. We’ve asserted our strength in the Middle East. We’ve changed the dynamic, and we’re not putting any pressure on Israel.”

To avoid a global takeover by what he calls “Islamofascism,” former Commentary magazine editor Norman Podhoretz urges war with Iran, no matter what the outcome: “There would be a vast increase in the price of oil with catastrophic consequences for every country of the world. The worldwide outcry against the inevitable civilian casualties would make the anti-Americanism of today look like a love fest.”  Still, the war would be worth it.

Sniegoski gives almost equal time to neoconservative opponents, called “realists,” who argue that stability is paramount for the Middle East, while neoconservatives want to destabilize it as fast as possible. Their aim is to fracture the countries of the region into harmless statelets of no danger to Israel. Given the results of the war in Iraq, the realists would seem to have the better of the argument. But why didn’t they act on it at the time? They seemed to be strangely diffident, apparently lacking the conviction of the neoconservatives. Even much respected Secretary of State Colin Powell, who called them “crazies,” eventually gave in and helped bring on the war with his speech to the UN.

The realists have another chance to rise to the occasion since the neoconservatives are now gunning for war with Iran,invoking the same fantasies they did with Iraq — the threat of nuclear destruction by a nation that doesn’t have nuclear weapons, while indeed Israel has an estimated 200 to 300 such weaponry.

No diplomacy for the neoconservatives. War is the only answer. Before the Iraq war began on specious grounds, Saddam Hussein tried to get talks started with the United States, and so has Iran — to no avail. Once demonized, always demonized. For all the tragic mistakes they have made, neoconservatives continue to exert influence.

Is there perhaps an alternative way of looking at the threats, real or perceived, that Israel faces? Are the neoconservatives so certain their policies may not be ultimately harmful to Israel as well as to the United States? Fragmented or failed states are vulnerable to the very terrorists the neoconservatives claim to fear. Contemporary Mexico is a perfect example. A weak central government has lost control of the murderous criminal cartels that have established their own fiefdoms — a state within a state. They thrive on smuggling illicit drugs and human beings to the United States and receive weaponry in return that allows them to keep on killing. Wouldn’t it make more sense to deal with existing centrally controlled regimes, however critical of Israel, than take the chance of a terrorist-ridden region?

This deserves debate, but there isn’t any because the major media have ignored Sniegoski’s book. It’s scrupulously written with careful attention to detail. Its drawback? It can bring charges of anti-Semitism because it deals critically with a largely though not exclusively Jewish group. But Sniegoski is at pains to distinguish the neoconservatives from the greater Jewish community that is generally more averse to war than other Americans. So why not some reviews and a debate? It’s only democratic.

* Ed Warner was a political writer, essayist, and book reviewer for Time magazine for about 20 years, and another 20 with Voice of America (VOA) as a reporter-analyst-broadcaster. Heading a VOA Focus unit dealing with foreign affairs, he traveled to and reported on many countries–including Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, all countries of Central Asia, of the Caucasus, Turkey, Egypt, Sudan, Israel.  He is now retired with his wife in Arizona.