Iran--Iraq Deja Vu

With the Israel lobby drumming for war with Iran, it is instructive to
recall how the pro-Likudnik neoconservatives were the leading force for the
American attack on Iraq in 2003. The book that vividly recounts the
activities of the neocons in promoting war on Iraq (and Iran) is "The
Transparent Cabal: The Neoconservative Agenda, War in the Middle East, and
the National Interest of Israel" by Stephen J. Sniegoski. The following
is a brief review of the work by James Morris.

With his PhD training his history, Stephen J. Sniegoski has provided
exceptional documentation to illustrate the neocon/Israeli involvement in
shaping Bush administration policy in the Middle East. He relies heavily on
the very words of the neoconservatives and Israeli officials. To illustrate
their influence, he provides commentary from mainstream sources. This was no
hidden conspiracy. The title is an oxymoron since the book clearly
illustrates that the neoconservative agenda was openly revealed to the
public. However, few writers have had the courage to point this out, and
even fewer have had the energy and diligence to connect all the dots.

One key point is how Sniegoski shows that members of the traditional foreign
policy establishment and the oil interests-the preferred villains of such
leftist anti-war commentators as Chomsky and Finkelstein-were hardly pushing
for an aggressive Middle East policy. Prior to 9/11, the oil companies
sought an end of the sanctions against the Iran and Iraq. Major opponents of
the war on Iraq included Zbigniew Brzezinski and Brent Scowcroft, former
National Security Advisors. The military was anything but gung ho towards an
attack on Iraq and had to be pushed in that direction by the Bush
administration neocons. Similarly, the CIA also had to be pressured to come
up with the bogus war propaganda. To disseminate the most fallacious war
propaganda, the neocons had to create their own hard-core propaganda agency,
the Office of Special Plans, under the direction of super-neocon Douglas
Feith in the Defense Department. In 2006, the traditional foreign policy
establishment dominated the congressionally-mandated "Iraq Study Group"
(co-chaired by James Baker and Lee Hamilton), which sought to bring about
peace in the Middle East through negotiations with such enemies of Israel as
Iran and Syria. The neocon American Enterprise Institute would counter this
move by proposing the "surge" in Iraq, which Bush would adopt in early 2007.

In summarizing the fundamental geostrategic difference between the
neoconservatives and the traditional foreign policy establishment, Sniegoski
provides extensive documentation to show that the neocons sought to
destabilize Israel's enemies (not simply Iraq, but also Iran, Syria, and
ultimately Saudi Arabia) purportedly to establish "democracy." However, the
neocon destabilization policy dovetailed with the long-time Likudnik policy
goal of destabilizing and fragmenting Israel's enemies, with the goal of
improving Israel's geostrategic position. In contrast, the traditional
American foreign policy establishment sought to maintain stability in the
Middle East in order to facilitate the flow of oil. Instability would
threaten the flow of oil and the economy of the industrial nations which
depended on oil.

As Sniegoski points out, it was the trauma of 9/11 that gave the neocons the
opportunity to gain upper hand in the Bush administration. With their use of
bogus intelligence, the neocons were able to skillfully convert a
know-nothing president and a fearful and angry American public to support an
attack on Iraq. As the anger and fear faded, the traditional establishment
was able to reassert itself to the degree that the neocons and Israel have
been unsuccessful in their effort to get the United States to attack Iran.
But Sniegoski points out that the neocon element was never eliminated from
the Bush administration.

This book has many other things to write about, which space does not allow.
However, it should be pointed out that while the book deals with the Bush
administration, the issues discussed retain a relevance today in the Obama
era. The recent (March 2009) successful derailment of Chas Freeman's
appointment to chair the National Intelligence Council clearly illustrates
that the neoconservatives and other elements of the Israel Lobby still hold
significant power in shaping American Middle East policy. It also
illustrates the opposition to the neocon Middle East war policy from the
traditional foreign policy establishment, which Freeman represents.

This book provides a good understanding of the motivation behind America's
aggressive war policy in the Middle East, which is not in line with the
national interests of the United States nor of the interests of humanity as
a whole. It is a must read for all people concerned about the future of the
globe.