I’ve written in the past how I could not vote for Romney because he was in hock to Sheldon Adelson. I’ve noted how Adelson lusts for war with Iran. He suggested dropping nukes on it. Adelson at the same time has told us he regrets serving in the uniform of the U.S. and hopes his boys join the army. Not the American one but the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF).
It is common knowledge, or at least I hope it is, that Benjamin Netanyahu has been trying to have the United States attack Iran since he came into power in Israel. The whole need to attack Iran has been like the doomsday clock that some scientists used to continually predict the happening of a nuclear war within a few days. Year after year for at least a dozen years we have been warned by Netanyahu and others that Iran would have a nuclear bomb in a year or so.
When the U.S. seemed less than enthusiastic, Netanyahu suggested as far back as 2012 that if the U.S. would not attack Iran then Israel would do it on its own. That was never a serious consideration. Just like the Arabs won’t put their troops at risk preferring the United States to do the fighting for them; so is it Israel would prefer the United States fight its war with Iran. Not that I blame them, why lose your own boys and girls and spend your national treasure if another nation can be bought into losing their young men and women and spend its money doing it for you.
To force us into war with Iran, a new Jewish group has been formed that calls itself the Israeli American Council. Its chairman and its co-chairmen are from Israel and were members of its army, the IDF. Most of the members of the board of directors are from Israel. It lists as one of its main goals: “Foster active support of initiatives that further Israel’s welfare, security, education and its relations with the United States.” (Nothing about helping America.)
Its inaugural national conference took place on November 7 -9 in Washington, D.C. It was sold out. People interested in attending were invited to join: “Mr. Sheldon Adelson, Mr. Haim Saban,” and others.
The list of speakers included Mitt Romney (forever beholden to Adelson) , Senator Menendez from New Jersey and Senator Graham from South Carolina. Graham in his speech called the Iran situation “the most significant event in modern history.” He also threatened to cut off U.S funds to the U.N. if it keeps up “Israeli bashing.”
It is reported that two billionaires Sheldon Adelson and Haim Saban, an ally of Hillary Clinton, who “have gained enormous political power in the new era of super PACs and unlimited contributions, and both made it clear during a rare joint appearance Sunday before an audience of several hundred Israeli Americans that they intend to assert that power during the next presidential campaign and beyond with policy demands for their candidates. In particular, they vowed to press both sides for a more hawkish approach to the Middle East.” (my emphasis)
The article went on to note: “In their public remarks, Saban and Adelson found common ground in their disdain for Iran, and their fear for the danger they say that regime poses for Israel. They expressed concern about U.S. negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program. ”
Saban said the United States should explore “all options” including tougher economic sanctions and do more to make Iran understand “we mean business” if they don’t agree to a nuclear pact. “Take military action, but only after all options have been exhausted. A stick and a carrot yes — but we’ve shown too many carrots and a small stick,””
If he were Netanyahu in the event of a bad Iran deal, Saban said, “First of all I’d come to the full realization we’re screwed, maybe” and “would bomb the living daylights out of these sons of bitches.” Aside from his disdain for the lives of Iranians, he knows Israel can’t go it alone and that’s why he’s paying to get the Americans to do it.
Adelson remarked that negotiations can only accomplish so much before military action becomes necessary. “I wouldn’t just talk, I would take action,” he said. “Not taking action is too costly.” (I’d point out that taking action will be very costly to American and Iranian lives.)
In effect what we see is two billionaires and their supporters who will condition their support of the next president on the promise of a U.S. attack on Iran. None suggest Iran is a threat to us.
I’ve always wondered if some day billionaires would be able to buy the blood of American troops; some think they can. I hope they are wrong.
Matt:
It’s estimated that Israel has over a hundred nuclear weapons. If they wanted to obliterate Iran, they could. Iran’s nuclear development really doesn’t threaten Israel, but, Iran’s armed proxies certainly do. Hezbollah, and, Hamas, both, publicly support the destruction of Israel. They occupy positions on Israel’s borders, and, periodically mount attacks on Israel. Tel Aviv is more concerned about the potential of these mujahid groups than Iran’s possession of the bomb. Iran wants a free hand in Syria, and, Ahwaz (Khusestan). Supreme Leader Khamenei would bargain away the bomb, if the West would accept the Shia crescent, stretching from Iran to Lebanon, as a fact. Of course, the Israeli government/IDF won’t allow Iran to solidify it’s position in Lebanon and/or, Gaza. The potential Iranian nuclear threat is just an excuse for Israel to launch a war of prevention against that solidification. Netanyahu can see that Iran is straining to fulfill its commitments to its’ proxies. He’s chafing at the bit to strike at the logistical base that supplies, and, trains, Hezbollah and, Hamas. Obama is playing a deeper game. By stretching Iran’s resources past their limit, he and, his advisers, believe that the resulting domestic unrest will lead to a change of government in Iran. That seems like a plausible approach to me.
Adelson, and, his kosher mafia pals, won’t prevail. The CIA and State Dept. have put decades of work into destabilizing the Islamic Republic. They won’t agree to a rush to judgement by the IDF. Patience is key. The Khamenei government will eventually founder under the weight of its crimes against the Iranian people. Time is our ally.
Khalid:
I’ve heard estimates of 400 nuclear weapons. I don’t know why such an amount whether 100 or 400 is needed but I hope they are never used. True Israel is worried about Hezbollah and Hamas because of their proximity but they are more an irritant than a real threat unless as you suggest they get a nuclear weapon but how realistic is that. I know little about those weapons but I’m sure they are easily transported.
Israel was able to push us into war with Iraq because it did not like Saddam’s influence in flaming the fuel of the intifada where he was giving money to the families of suicide bombers. It would follow as you suggest that it would also be unhappy about Iran’s support for those two terrorist groups on its borders. As much as Israel would like to diminish Iran’s capability to do it, it seems to me it does not want to be the one to do it since the anger would be directed at it, it would prefer America to do it to avoid taking all of the blame itself.
I’m not sure Obama’s hope for a change in Iranian government is realistic. Wasn’t an attempt made by the Iranian people during the Green Revolution to bring about something like a little more democracy brutally suppressed. But I agree with you that patience is the key and from the US point of view it is better to have discontent among the Iranian people toward their rulers than uniting them against an outside aggressor.
More on Adelson and his call for war:
http://takimag.com/article/did_we_vote_for_war
Henry:
Pat Buchanon is not one of my favorite persons. That he agrees with me in this issue is a surprise. However his take on Ukraine is quite different than mine.
Buchanon has also been called anti-Semitic, as one of the persons who comments here suggests that I am. The use of that term is to suppress all speech that may be looked upon as a criticism of Israel. That was one of the big knocks on Buchanon and probably why he has all but disappeared from television except for one show by a former Jesuit named McLaughlin.
★ Matt, I do not believe that you endorse such a view. So I will not leave you open to such an imputation. We are judged by the company we keep, and by those we choose to so ardently defend, however .
Matt :
A group you and I got into quite a dustup about not too long ago because I was offended by your vociferous support of them, HAMAS, just made the news again. They issued a communicado early this afternoon praising the Palestinian Synagogue attackers as…. HEROIC !!! … Hatcheting, shooting and knifing to death six Israelis in Synagogue, at worship, is just the price of freedom for these jackals I take it. Interesting timing on today’s post !!!
John:
For fear some deranged terrorist might commit a horrific act I’m suppose to keep quiet. I can’t follow that logic.
Nor did I ever support Hamas, as you wrongly impute to me. How did you ever arrive at that? I suggested the Israeli attack on Gaza was way out of proportion with it stated goals.
Smedley’s rant was occasionally over the top, but magnificent. You are onto something with your reporting on this issue.
I wonder if you might consider suggesting something to Harper’s Magazine. I say them because they were the first (through their Harper’s Index) to point out the “1%” statistics and the increase in student loans to a trillion, both of which were picked up by other media from them, if I am not mistaken. In other words, this small magazine is a media leader.
Get in touch if you want to discuss.
War, sadly, sometimes is a necessary evil. 2. Iran has not legal right to acquire nuclear weapons; we have nuclear non-proliferation treaties; yes I know Israel has nuclear weapons; I’m not worried about Israel using them or safeguarding them. I am worried that radicals in the Muslim world will get them and will use them. 3. Want to take money out of politics (stringently regulate lobbyists: don’t regulate free speech; it a leftist billionaire wants to buy campaign adds, a rightist billionaire will respond. It balances. 4. Reduce all lobbying to one postcard per person (each corporation is one person) per issue per year (or per session of Congress.); 4A: If a Congressman wants more info from anyone, he can publicly ask for that info and publish his request and the response he gets. 5. Conclusion: 1. Keep Iran from getting nuclear weapons; we don’t need pre-emptive military action; 2. Allow anyone to speak freely (the Koch brothers, Soros, you and me John Q. Public), to form political committees, but LIMIT LOBBYING. so that you and I have exactly the same chance to communicate with Congress as the fattest lobbyist, contractor, corporation working out of Washington D.C. 6. Finally, if you cut out the rich from contributing to campaign speech, political speech, the only ones left speaking will be the leftist Media and leftist Academia. Justice Robers correctly ruled in the majority in the campaign “speech” issue, and all the ballyhoo to the contrary is to silence people like the Koch brothers and small voices as from Right to Life political organizations. Free Speech for everyone; Print as many pamphlets as you want, buy as much air time as you want; LIMIT LOBBYING. CUT PAYMENTS TO ANY CONGRESSMAN WHO SPEAKS BEFORE ANY ASSEMBLY; NO GOVERMENT WORKER SHOULD WORK AS A LOBBYIST, CONTRACTOR TO GOVERNMENT OR WITH A BUSINESS THAT GETS MONEY FROM GOVERNMENT WITH 10 Y EARS OF THEIR PUBLIC SERVICE. PERIOD!
War Is a Racket is the title of two works, a speech and a booklet, by retired United States Marine Corps Major General and two time Medal of Honor recipient Smedley D. Butler. In them, Butler frankly discusses from his experience as a career military officer how business interests commercially benefit (including war profiteering) from warfare.
After his retirement from the Marine Corps, Butler made a nationwide tour in the early 1930s giving his speech “War is a Racket”. The speech was so well received that he wrote a longer version as a small book with the same title that was published in 1935 by Round Table Press, Inc., of New York. The booklet was also condensed in Reader’s Digest as a book supplement which helped popularize his message. In an introduction to the Reader’s Digest version, Lowell Thomas, the “as told to” author of Butler’s oral autobiographical adventures, praised Butler’s “moral as well as physical courage”.
Henry:
I’ve heard of the book before. I will have to get it. Thanks.
Matt, I recently saw a CNN interview with Vt Senator Bernie Sanders…part of the discussion was the influence of the billionaire class after Citizens United…when CNN reporter asked Senatore Sanders whether he would run for US President in 2016, he suggested that US may be at a tipping point where only those be holding to the billionaire class will be able to campaign…if this comes to pass the it appears to me you have your answer…
Jean:
I’m afraid you are right. No one can be elected without the billionaires in a national race. This time however before they give their money they are going to want iron clad promises to guarantee the results they seek.