Did Israel Lead the US into the War on Iraq? By Mitchell Plitnick

Seems like a fairly sane discussion of this issue, on which a great deal of hot air is vented.

---

Israeli support for the invasion was never a secret. Both the Sharon government and a clear majority of the Israeli populace favored attacking Iraq. A Guardian (UK) report on the undermining of US intelligence agencies in order to provide “evidence” to support the invasion describes how Americans working outside the CIA worked with Israelis operating outside of the Mossad to help produce that “evidence.” Reports before the war indicated that Israel was playing a key role in preparing for the invasion, and other indicate that Israeli operatives have been working among Iraqi Kurds.

---

But all of this is a far cry from proving that this was a “war for Israel.” While the results of the war don’t necessarily shed light on the intentions of the planners, the fact is that Israel’s position in the region is less secure as a result of the Iraq war, as many of us predicted. Some believed before the war that Israel would use the cover of the war to expel Palestinians from the West Bank en masse, but this never materialized. But the war has only increased mistrust in the United States’ ability to honestly broker the Israel-Palestine conflict, and the fact that the US allowed Sharon to count the unilateral disengagement from Gaza as being part of the “Roadmap” is perceived as an American agreement that Israel may impose facts and call it a “peace process.” The increase in both the number and the organization of terrorist groups like al Qaeda also increases the risk to Israel. Whatever gains Israel has made in advancing its policies in the Occupied Territories and the larger Middle East in the past three years have not come as a result of the war on Iraq, but despite it. (For views on this across the spectrum, see www.amconmag.com/2005/2005_11_07/article.html and www.juancole.com/2004/06/situation-in-iraq-acutely-threatens.html

Incidently this is why I like to point out from time to time that Sharon is a moron, this is a disaster for Israel, and predictably so, but Sharon is so addicted to his aggressive at all costs tendencies that he encouraged the Bushites folly.

The “Clean Break” paper, which is the cornerstone of the “war for Israel” theory, focuses on the idea of Israel as an independent actor. Where toppling Saddam is one point among many, promoting an independently-acting Israel is a major theme of the paper. Although constant lobbying to maintain and even increase aid to Israel is a permanent face of Middle East politics in America, the Israeli right, for whom the “Clean Break” paper was written, has always sought to move away from American aid so that Israel could act on its own, without having to worry about Washington’s reaction. Having America intervene so powerfully on Israel’s behalf flies in the face of one of the “Clean Break” paper’s central tenets, strongly implying that the decision to invade Iraq, though contemplated by these very same people, was not a primary way of advancing the goals set forth in the paper. Israel’s position was certainly not ignored by the neocon planners of the Iraq war; but the war does not advance the vision promoted in the paper.

---

As usual, neither extreme is correct. Nothing involving the US and the Middle East happens without consideration, if not the actual involvement, of Israel. Israel is always a factor in American strategy in the region, both as a tool and ally and as a friend whose interests are a concern. For some in policymaking positions, Israel’s interests are America’s interests—not because they favor Israel, but because they believe (quite incorrectly, we would contend) that America’s interests are best served by having their staunchest ally as the dominant force in the region.

William Bowles

Bush went to War because he WANTED TO....


No other reason is needed. * is a crazy man.....

there are many people who would like to place blame on israel for anything that happens on this planet.

george "the chimp" bush doesn't give a damn about israel with the exception of how it relates to the rapture.

*

*

and maybe, just maybe - try James Howard Kunstler, "The Long Emergency:
Surviving the Converging Catastrophes of the Twenty-first Century"

Just remember, Bush and Cheney are oil men, and Halliburton is a major oil field services company. (and neither Barbara Streisand nor George Soros nor "Coastie" supported Bush)

Cheney and his oil buddies seem much closer to the center of this.

Israel was the only county in danger from Iraq. If Bush saves Israel he is a hero. If he defeats Iraq he controls the oil and becomes rich. It would be a win-win situation except those damn Iraqis don't play by the rules. They are stubborn fighters that multiply like rabbits.

Why do you think Israel was in danger from Iraq. They were technically at war, but Israel had already defeated Iraqi troops in two wars (I believe) that partcipated against it (before their military was worn down by sanctions) and seemed quite able to handle anything Iraq sent its way.

Saddam was giving money to the families of suiciders,
and Israel was hit by a few SCUDs back during GulfWar I.

Nevertheless, had he been left alone, it seems clear that
other than such token efforts he would have done nothing,
and there is every reason to think that there would have
been "regime change" on his demise anyway. It was the oil
and the oil bourse that made things urgent. Hiz'bullah
for example, is a much more real and urgent threat, but it
has no oil.

The spies who pushed for war

Julian Borger reports on the shadow rightwing intelligence network set up in Washington to second-guess the CIA and deliver a justification for toppling Saddam Hussein by force

Thursday July 17, 2003
The Guardian

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,999669,00.html
____________________


A Clean Break:
A New Strategy for Securing the Realm

http://www.israeleconomy.org/strat1.htm