Asia Times: Unsolicited advice for Bush on Iran
Unsolicited advice for Bush on Iran
By Jim Lobe
And:Indeed, hawks outside the administration who are nonetheless closely associated with administration hardliners led by Vice President Dick Cheney have been complaining bitterly about the decision to send Burns since it was announced. The neo-conservative Weekly Standard called the move "stunningly shameful", while former UN ambassador John Bolton said it was proof of the administration's "complete intellectual collapse".
On speculation that Israel may be preparing to take unilateral military action against Iran's nuclear facilities, Brzezinski said it would not be a "smart strategic choice" due to the likelihood that the US would even become "more bogged down" in the region. Scowcroft said he would tell the Israelis to "calm down".
Review of Mearsheimer & Walt's new book
BY SCOTT McLEMEE Special to Newsday
September 16, 2007
At the same time, they are wedded to the notion that the U.S. and Israel have distinct national interests - with the American interest defined, more or less, as sustained access to Middle Eastern oil. They reject the idea that Iraq was occupied in pursuit of oil. Hence, that policy was an effect of the Israel lobby's efforts on behalf of a different national interest. Here, we see the real limits of their analysis. After 1993, by their own account, the major focus of Israel's concern about its own security was Iran, not Iraq. But it was the American neoconservatives - defined by the authors as part of the Israel lobby - who drew up the plans for attacking Iraq. This scheme did win support among the Israeli public in 2002 and '03, but it's hardly a matter of subordinating American policy to another country's interests.
Mearsheimer & Walt: Seven Questions: The Israel Lobby Revisited
Posted September 2007
John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt made waves in 2006 when they argued that a powerful “Israel lobby” distorts U.S. policies in the Middle East. Back with a new book expanding on the same topic, these noted realist scholars sat down with FP to explain why they are speaking out.
All politicians are sensitive to interest groups, whether it’s the farm lobby, or drug companies, or energy companies, or the National Rifle Association. Clearly, groups like the Israel lobby tend to exert their most profound influence on Capitol Hill, but they also wield considerable influence—like other special interest groups—over the executive branch. This is not to say that any of these organizations control U.S. policy, just that they exert a very powerful influence on it. And one of the ways you see that is in the presidential campaign that’s currently going on. American Middle East policy is clearly in trouble, and you would expect presidential candidates to be discussing and debating what ought to be done on a wide range of Middle East issues. But when it comes to Israel, all you get from presidential candidates is a competition for who can demonstrate the greatest devotion to Israel and willingness to back it almost unconditionally.