If you are not familiar with the group known as the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, this article by one of their ‘fellows’ should give you a taste of what they are about. In it Benjamin Weinthal is rather nonchalant with the facts, and shows contempt towards historical reality by one particularly glaring omission.
Weinthal uses as the basis for his piece what he calls the ‘Begin Doctrine’. That is the doctrine of preemptive strikes on other states, named after former terrorist and later leader of Israel, Menachem Begin. Weinthal claims this has been ‘the preemptive-military-strike doctrine of Israel’s government since the early 1980s’. But anyone aware with the history of Israel knows that it has employed this tactic since well before, and even lied about doing so in front of the world, as Abba Eban did in 1967.
Weinthal continues by writing
…in light of the Holocaust and the lethal anti-Semitism of the clerical regime in Tehran, Israel cannot tolerate the toxic combination of weapons of mass destruction with a regime determined to “wipe Israel off the map.”
A few issues here. Undoubtedly Ahmadinejad is an unsavoury character, but if as Mr Weinthal claims Iran’s leadership espouses a particularly ‘lethal‘ form of anti-semitism, why haven’t they done anything about their quite sizable jewish minority? And if Tehran espouses such a ‘lethal‘ form of anti-semitism, why have Iran’s Jews refused the offer of migration to Israel? And Weinthal regurgitates the old ‘wipe Israel off the map‘ lie. One thing to notice when propagandists such as Mr Weinthal refer to this alleged claim, they resolutely refuse to cite Ahamdinejad’s follow up comments. Their screeds wouldn’t work so well if they did.
Weinthal continues by referring to the Israeli attacks on Iraq’s and Syria’s nuclear reactors. Yet here is where the glaring omission comes in, as he makes no mention of the fact that the Israeli attack on Osirak was actually counter-productive
…the Israeli raid on Osirak had the effect of transforming what had been a relatively modest operation involving 400 scientists funded at $700 million a year — with a capability for generating enough plutonium for less than one bomb a year — into a large, covert enterprise involving over 7,000 scientists and technicians with a $10 billion investment dedicated to developing the underground capacity to enrich enough uranium for six nuclear bombs a year.
Does that make the Osirak raid sound like it was a successful cure to Saddam’s nuclear ambitions. And remember, Saddam was therefore more serious about seeking nuclear capability AFTER having been attacked by Israel.
An out-of-control regime in Tehran that shows no hesitation to repeatedly call for Israel’s abolition (and murders U.S. soldiers in Lebanon, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Afghanistan), animated Bibi’s efforts to go to great lengths in Washington to convey the murderous nature of Iran’s regime.
His use of the term ‘out-of-control’ quite obviously seeks to paint the Iranian leadership as irrational (an important branch to this push for war). Unfortunately such an inference is not shared by senior figures in the US military and in the leadership of Israel. Weinthal also seeks to invoke the ‘use of proxies’ argument for waging war on Iran. Unfortunately the logic that this argument carries with it, is usually not applied to those western states who have a far more bloody track record when it comes to the use of proxies, never mind direct aggressions and invasions (something Iran can’t be accused of).
When Wienthal writes… ‘While the Mullahs move at a rapid-fire pace to develop nuclear weapons devices’ – he for some reason, decides not to provide evidence for this claim.
…Israel and the panic-stricken Sunni states have to consider other means to end Iran’s drive to obtain nukes. Recall it was the Wikileaks cables that revealed Saudi King Abdullah’s desire to “cut off the head of the snake” in Iran in order to stop Tehran’s atomic program
If the Sunni states in the middle east are ‘panic-stricken’ its not by the story Mr Weinthal seeks to present here…
73 percent of respondents believe that Israel and the US are the two countries presenting the largest threat to the security of the Arab world, with 51 percent believing that Israel is the most threatening, 22 percent believe the US is the most threatening, and 5 percent reporting a belief that Iran is the single country most threatening to the security of their countries. The results on this question vary from one Arab country to another.
And with regard to King Abdullah’s remarks (one of the rare occasions you will hear folks like Foundation for Defense of Democracies Mr Wietnhal cite an Arab leader favourably – when it supports the push for war) they should be viewed in the age old tradition of Arab leaders (US clients) telling the US what they think it wants to hear. Sweet nothings to remain in bed beside a rich benefactor.
Wienthal finishes thus… ‘It is worth reading Adam Kredo’s important piece on Obama’s flip-flops’ – which doesn’t actually demonstrate any flip-flopping from Obama.
It would appear that folks at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, with their rather benign sounding title, are engaged in some malignant propagandizing in a push for war. My thoughts? No surprise there.