Passionate Attachment
Condoleezza Rice's predictable sabre-rattling
on Iran, upon assuming her new post
as Secretary of State, spotlights once
again the hidden lacuna within US power
centers, which at once threatens US
democracy at home and US interests abroad.
Simply put, the move against Iran is
more of an Israeli-driven agenda than
anything else. It also underlines Iran's
incapacity to break out of its isolationist
mould as well as the larger disarray
among upper echelons in the Muslim world
who despair that they have seen it all
before.
The Washington Post observed on February
12 that the "pattern and tone" of statements
over the past several weeks by President
Bush, Vice President Cheney, and now
by Condoleezza Rice, strike "some as
similar to claims made in 2002 about
weapons of mass destruction in Saddam
Hussein's Iraq." The founding father
of the United States and its first president,
George Washington, had cautioned his
countrymen against the perils of passionate
attachment to a country which could
override vital US interests.
In this connection, the late guru of
US foreign policy, George Ball, co-wrote
with his son the book "The Passionate
Attachment" wherein the authors pointed
out the dangers of over-catering to
Israel. George Ball made his mark opposing
the US involvement in Vietnam during
cabinet meetings in the Lyndon Johnson
administration. Prof. James Bill of
the College of William and Mary (attended
by Thomas Jefferson) repeated this in
his book "George Ball: Behind the Scenes
in US Foreign Policy." Sales of both
books were killed by silence. At the
same time, Israeli Cabinet Minister
Natan Sharansky - whose book, "The Case
for Democracy," argues that dictatorships
threaten world peace and that democracy
therefore is essential to US and world
security - has had a profound impact
on President Bush.
Bush publicly credited Sharansky for
influencing and guiding his views on
foreign policy and gave copies of his
book to Condoleezza Rice and British
Prime Minister Tony Blair. Noted US
leaders I met - including Senators Fulbright,
Biden, McGovern and Jim Abourezk (with
whom I worked as Of Counsel) - all shared
a similar concern on the Israeli factor
in American polity. Also, major US military
personalities such as Admiral Zumwalt,
Admiral Moorer, who were both Naval
Chiefs of Staff, and General Brown who
was Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff,
had a similar perspective. This is substantiated
in the book "They Dare to Speak Out"
by former Congressman Paul Findley.
In June 1967, the American ship USS
Liberty was strafed and bombed by Israeli
fighter aircraft. Yet the matter was
hushed up by the Johnson Administration.
34
American sailors were killed and hundreds
were wounded. US Naval Commander James
Ennes wrote a book on it entitled "Assault
on the Liberty". Former US Ambassador
to Saudi Arabia, James Akins, delivered
a keynote address on this very subject
documenting the scale of the carnage
while slamming US inaction on it. Former
US Presidential candidate, Pat Buchanan,
appearing February 13 with Israeli Natan
Sharansky on the influential news program,
"Meet the Press", stated that Israel's
failure to give up the occupied territories
in the Gaza and the West Bank "is causing
acts of terror, not only against you,
but against us" and "is making us hated
in a part of the world where the United
States was never before hated." So why
is this happening if influential Americans
are aware of it? The flaw is within.
Pat
Buchanan had once characterized the
US Congress as an "Israel-occupied territory."
There are 435 elected members of the
US Congress' lower house - each of them
is up for re-election after every 2
years. The sole focus and obsession,
therefore, becomes in getting re-elected.
They cannot afford to antagonize powerful
special interests - especially the pro-Israeli
lobby which is now allied with the Indian
caucus and fundamentalist Christians.
My former law partner Senator James
Abourezk left the US Senate disgusted
by the domination of special vested
interests in the US Congress. Then,
too, the emergence of the Indo-Israeli
nexus is another factor to ponder.
A
recent survey published in the Christian
Science Monitor shows that 67 percent
in India support George Bush's so-called
war on terrorism. It is indicative of
the inherent animus and palpable bias
of the Hindu majority who view with
glee the global bashing of Muslims.
Both India and Israel are helped in
all this by, in effect, the ineptness
and timidity of the Muslim governing
elites. The key question arises: How
much democracy exists within the United
States when it comes to debate, discussion,
and development of its Mid East policies?
Based upon the foregoing, not very much.
