This article is © 2012 by Stephen J. Sniegoski. All rights reserved by author.
This version was posted February 22, 2012 by WTM Enterprises.


The push for war against Syria:
James Morris dares to mention the taboo history

The Lobby's humanitarianism once again in doubt


If you find this article of value, please send a donation of at least $3 to TLD. More information appears below.


On Russia Today's "Crosstalk" program on Syria, presented February 10, guest James Morris was brave enough to incisively point out the taboo fact that the Israel Lobby has been in the forefront in pushing a hard-line interventionist approach for the United States toward that divided country. The host and the two other guests on the show pooh-poohed the idea, contending that it would not be in Israel's national interest to topple the secular Assad regime and possibly bring about an Islamist state that could be even more hostile to Israel. But when one moves from speculation to an analysis of the actual position of members of the Israel Lobby, one sees that Morris was completely correct. Moreover, Morris was completely correct in pointing out that the Lobby's position has nothing to do with ending oppression, and everything to do with Israeli security, as Lobby members have perceived it (which perception might not be the same as that of the Crosstalk threesome).

The neoconservatives, the vanguard of the Israel Lobby, have especially been ardent in advocating a hard-line interventionist position. Evidence abounds for that, but it is best encapsulated by an August 2011 open letter to President Obama from the neoconservative Foundation for the Defense of Democracies (an organization that claims to address any "threat facing America, Israel and the West"), urging him to take stronger measures against Syria. Among the signatories of the letter are such neocon luminaries as:

Elliott Abrams, son-in-law of neocon "godfather" Norman Podhoretz and a former national security advisor to President George W. Bush;
Max Boot of the Council on Foreign Relations;
Bill Kristol, editor of the Weekly Standard;
Douglas Feith, under secretary of defense for policy under George W. Bush and an author of the "Clean Break" policy paper;
Joshua Muravchik, who is affiliated with the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, and Commentary;
Frederick W. Kagan, affiliated with AEI and co-author of the "surge" in Iraq;
Robert Kagan, co-founder of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC);
James Woolsey, head of the CIA under President Clinton and chair of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies;
Randy Scheunemann, former president of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq and foreign affairs advisor to John McCain in his 2008 presidential campaign;
Reuel Marc Gerecht, former director of PNAC's Middle East Initiative and a former resident fellow at AEI;
Michael Makovsky, advisor to the propagandistic Office of Special Plans, under Feith;
John Hannah, senior fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP) and a former national security advisor to Vice President Cheney; and
Gary Schmitt, AEI and former president of PNAC.

See "Conservatives suggest Syria next steps," by Josh Rogin, Foreign Policy, August 19, 2011.

As Morris notes in his presentation, elimination of the Assad regime in Syria was not an idea conceived by either the neocons or the broader Israel Lobby; instead, it can be traced back to the Israeli Likudniks, having been articulated by Oded Yinon in his 1982 piece, "A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties." In that article, Yinon called for Israel to use military means to bring about the dissolution of Israel's neighboring states and their fragmentation into a mosaic of ethnic and sectarian groupings. Yinon believed that this would not be a difficult undertaking because nearly all the Arab states were afflicted with internal ethnic and religious divisions.

In essence, the end result would be a Middle East of powerless statelets that could in no way confront Israeli power. Lebanon, then facing divisive chaos, was Yinon's model for the entire Middle East. Yinon wrote:

Lebanon's total dissolution into five provinces serves as a precedent for the entire Arab world including Egypt, Syria, Iraq, and the Arabian peninsula, and is already following that track. The dissolution of Syria and Iraq later on into ethnically or religiously unique areas such as in Lebanon is Israel's primary target on the Eastern front in the long run, while the dissolution of the military power of those states serves as the primary short-term target. (Quoted in my book, The Transparent Cabal, p. 51.)
What stands out in stark contrast to the debate taking place today is that Yinon's rationale for eliminating the dictatorial regimes in Syria and elsewhere in the Middle East had absolutely nothing to do with their oppressive practices and lack of democracy but was based solely on Israel's geostrategic interests — the aim being to permanently weaken Israel's enemies. The neocons took up the gist of Yinon's position in their 1996 "Clean Break" policy paper — whose authors included neocons Richard Perle, David Wurmser, and Feith — which was presented to then-incoming Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. It urged him to use military force against a number of Israel's enemies, which attacks, beginning with Iraq, would include "weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria." Once again, the fundamental concern was Israeli security, not liberty and democracy for the people of those countries. (TC, p. 90)

Numerous neocons before and after 9/11 argued that a confrontation with Syria was needed in order to protect the security of both the United States and Israel, whose interests they claimed coincided. And that position on Syria was shared by Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, who, one month before the U.S. invasion of Iraq, identified that country, along with Libya and Iran, as an ideal target for future U.S. action. Sharon stated: "These are irresponsible states, which must be disarmed of weapons [of] mass destruction, and a successful American move in Iraq as a model will make that easier to achieve." (Quoted in TC, p. 172.)

A month after Bush's 2004 re-election, Bill Kristol emphasized the key position of Syria in the "war on terrorism." He wrote in the Weekly Standard that because Syria was (alleged to be) interfering with America's efforts to put down the insurgency in Iraq, it was essential for the United States "to get serious about dealing with Syria as part of winning in Iraq, and in the broader Middle East." (Quoted in TC, pp. 253-4.)

The close ties between Syria and Iran would come to serve as a fundamental reason for the neocons' desire to take action against Syria. It was that factor that shaped neocon thinking on Israel's July 2006 incursion into Lebanon. Some months after the invasion, neocon Meyrav Wurmser would affirm that it was neocon influence in the Bush administration that was setting U.S. policy on Lebanon, with the aim being a direct Israeli confrontation with Syria.

"The neocons are responsible for the fact that Israel got a lot of time and space," Wurmser said. "They believed that Israel should be allowed to win. A great part of it was the thought that Israel should fight against the real enemy, the one backing Hizbullah. It was obvious that it is impossible to fight directly against Iran, but the thought was that its strategic and important ally should be hit." Furthermore, she said, "If Israel had hit Syria, it would have been such a harsh blow for Iran that it would have weakened it and [changed] the strategic map in the Middle East." (Quoted in TC, p. 278.)

And any action by Iran to protect its Syrian ally would provide a casus belli for the United States to attack Iran, which is what the neocons sought. Michael Ledeen opined, "The only way we are going to win this war is to bring down those regimes in Tehran and Damascus, and they are not going to fall as a result of fighting between their terrorist proxies in Gaza and Lebanon on the one hand, and Israel on the other. Only the United States can accomplish it." (Quoted in TC, p. 279) Bill Kristol argued the same point in his article, "It's Our War," underscoring the need for direct American involvement in the ongoing conflict. America, he wrote, "might consider countering this act of Iranian aggression [arms provided to Hezbollah] with a military strike against Iranian nuclear facilities." (Quoted in TC, p. 279.)

As can be seen, the goal of eliminating the Assad Baathist regime has existed among Israeli Likudniks and the neocons for some time. It currently propels the demand for militant action against the Syrian government. Moreover, action taken against Syria has become viewed as a way of seriously weakening Iran (perceived as a much more dangerous enemy), or even leading to war with it. That Israel might not benefit from regime change in Syria, and that some in Israel might actually fear such a development, does not alter the obvious fact that the neocons and much of the overall Israel Lobby support it. And it is they who exert an inordinate influence over the Middle East policy of the United States.  Ω

February 22, 2012

© 2012 by Stephen J. Sniegoski. All rights reserved by author.
This version was posted in 2012 by WTM Enterprises.

If you found this essay to be interesting, please donate at least $3 to our cause. You should make your check or money order payable in U.S. dollars to WTM Enterprises and send it to:

WTM Enterprises
P.O. Box 224
Roanoke, IN 46783

Thanks for helping to assure a future for TLD!

Notice to visitors who came straight to this document from off site: You are deep in The Last Ditch. Please check out our home page and table of contents.