“So Who’s Afraid of the Israel Lobby? Virtually everyone: Republican, Democrat – Conservative, Liberal. The fear factor is non-partisan, you might say, and palpable. The American Israel Public Affairs Committee brags that it is the most influential foreign policy lobbying organization on Capitol Hill, and has demonstrated that time and again, and not only on Capitol Hill,” Ray McGovern, March 2009.

On March 10, 2010 – a meeting of ‘collaborating minds’ was held at the US Senate office building in Washington. The meeting was sponsored by the US Senators, led by Senator Carl Levin (member of “America’s Pro-Israel Lobby”) and organized by the National Iranian American Council (NIAC). The participants included Congressmen Anna Eshoo, Mike Honda and Keith Ellison, professors Shireen Hunter (Georgetown University), Scott Lucas (University of Birmingham, UK), Ahmad Karimi-Hakkak (University of Maryland), Juan Cole (University of Michigan) and Muhammad Sahimi (University of Southern California) – and of course former US ambassador to NATO, Robert E. Hunter, now a Senior Advisor at the famous Zionist think tank RAND. The discussions were moderated by Neil MacFarquhar (New York Times) and Dr. Trita Parsi, president of NIAC.

The above list shows what kind of submissions, discussions and recommendations would have taken place other than Israeli wish of a regime-change in Tehran.

Ray McGovern, former CIA analyst (1963-1990) wrote his opinion of the meeting under the title Taboo Inhibits Frank Iran/Israel Talks as follows:

“Participants at an otherwise informative discussion on “Iran at a Crossroads” at the Senate on Wednesday seemed at pains to barricade the doors against the proverbial elephant being admitted into the room – in this case, Israel. This, despite the fact that the agenda virtually dictated that the elephant be allowed in – the cavernous hearing room also could have accommodated it – however awkward and untidy the atmosphere might have become. Otherwise, as was entirely predictable, the discussion would be lacking a crucial element, which is exactly what happened, which is exactly what always happens.

The panelists began by setting a fact- and reality-based context, which in turn raised hopes of a no-holds-barred discussion. Their observations included, or implied that the consequences of nuclear weapons proliferation in the general area of the Persian Gulf would be so truly ominous that “everything imaginable” should be done to head it off – The main “positive” of robust sanctions against a country like Iran is simply that those who impose them can feel good. It would be difficult, if not impossible, to target sanctions on the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps without hurting the Iranian people at large – The experience of the past several years demonstrates that the US and Iran share – and can act on – a range of common interests (in Afghanistan, for example). Neither country would profit from hostilities involving Iran and Iran is nowhere near producing a nuclear weapon, so there is time to reconsider what guarantees could be offered to Tehran to dissuade it from pursuing a nuclear weapons option.

With these observations on the table, it was as if the doors to the hearing room were clanked shut and bolted, lest the Israeli elephant be allowed to intrude. And this, despite a palpable yearning in the audience for the panelists to address uncomfortable questions, such as – could the mutual hostility today have anything to do with Israel and its ability to enlist the US behind Israeli strategic objectives? or Do the Iranian leaders see as contrived the oft-expressed concern that Iran might eventually obtain a nuclear weapon when American officials do nothing about Israel’s actual nuclear weapons, or for that matter, those of Pakistan and India? or Is the real objective of Israel and, by extension, the US, the same as it was with respect to Iraq seven years ago – that is, “regime change”?

Into the memory hole went past news reports about the Bush administration earmarking $400 million to support covert operations designed to frustrate Iran’s nuclear program and to destabilize its political system. Also unmentionable were troubling reports that the United States has helped “good” terrorist organizations, like Jundullah, to strike violent blows against Iran’s regime.

Is it a given, as one afternoon panelist suggested, that “Everyone knows that the Israelis would not use their considerable nuclear arsenal except in self-defense”? It seems that when Israel is mentioned in these affairs, commentary must be only in the most positive light; there can be no suggestion that Israel might use, say, bunker-busting tactical nukes to destroy hardened Iranian targets.

Does the Israeli government honestly perceive an “existential threat” in Iran’s possible acquisition of a few nuclear weapons against the 200-300 devices already in Israel’s arsenal? If so, is Israel prepared to “defend itself” by attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities, using the preventive-war justification, which has long been a staple of Israeli policy and was adopted kit and caboodle by Bush and Cheney?

Are the Israelis counting on US logistical support for such a preventive attack -intelligence and operational planning support of the kind that enabled its surgical strike on the Iraqi nuclear reactor at Osirak in 1981? Are they expecting the kind of political support the United States provided in the wake of Israel’s September 2007 attack on a suspect nuclear-related facility being built in Syria?

Without free discussion and greater understanding, there is virtually no prospect of lessened tensions. Rather, the volatile situation seems likely to get still worse, and could even include an Israeli provocation and/or a preventive strike on Iran.”

Before concluding this post – I would like to remind the readers about the one-minute prophetic statement made by Congresswoman Barbara Lee on the House floor (watch the video below) against the invasion of Afghanistan: “As we act, let us not become the evil we deplore”. Her was the only vote against the bill which gave Dubya Bush the constitutional power to invade a country which did not even have a conventional Army. Now after over eight years occupying Afghanistan, the great majority of Afghans do hate Americans more than they might have hated Taliban.

http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2010/03/14/iran-at-a-crossroads/