Skip to content


STEPHEN SNIEGOSKI : Neocons’ Goal — Iran by Way of Libya

That neocons would exploit any U.S. intervention in Libya to justify intervention in Iran is underscored by  continued propagandizing about the alleged Iranian nuclear threat.

by Stephen Sniegoski

Graffiti against Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi is seen on a wall in the main square of Tobruk.

Although the neocons had initially been rather cool toward the popular uprisings in the Middle East which threatened  regimes friendly to the U.S. and Israel,  such as Mubarak’s in Egypt, they have reverted to their militant regime change stance toward Gaddafi ’s regime in Libya.  In espousing this interventionist position, they are not as conspicuous as they had been regarding Iraq and Iran, when they had stood in the vanguard,  but are only one component of a popular mainstream cause, which unites many otherwise disparate groups.  Nonetheless, they are a vital players who apparently look to involvement in Libya as a chance to renew their  now-stalled effort to reconfigure the Middle East in the interests of Israel (whose interests, they allege, coincide with those of the United States).  [See Sniegoski, The Transparent Cabal]

The Libyan uprising has captivated the minds of many mainstream American liberals who simply advocate military intervention there for humanitarian reasons, a position  harkening back to the widespread liberal support for U.S. intervention against Serbia over Kosovo.  Thus, we see such liberals as Senator John Kerry and Bill Clinton advocating a no-fly zone over the country to prevent Gaddafi from using his airpower.  And while some of these liberals have been hawks on the Middle East and thus not much different from the neoconservatives (and often called neoliberals), such as the staff of The New Republic magazine, support for U.S. involvement in a no-fly zone also includes numerous opponents of the war on Iraq.  For example, Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times wrote in his article “The Case for a No Fly Zone”:  “I was a strong opponent of the Iraq war, but this feels different.  We would not have to send any ground troops to Libya, and a no-fly zone would be executed at the request of Libyan rebel forces and at the ‘demand’ of six Arab countries in the gulf.  The Arab League may endorse the no-fly zone as well, and, ideally, Egypt and Tunisia would contribute bases and planes or perhaps provide search-and-rescue capabilities.” [New York Times, March 9, 2011, March 9, 2o11]

Kristof provides what serves as the appeal of the no-fly zone to liberals and others who shy away from full-scale military intervention.  It appears to offer a way of supporting the anti-Gaddafi protesters without getting deeply involved in an actual war.

Similarly, Shadi Hamid, Director of Research at the Brookings Institute’s Doha Center and a Fellow in its Saban Center for Middle East Policy, contends that the situation in Libya is completely different from what had existed in Saddam’s Iraq.  “This is not an Iraq situation,” he said. “This is a situation where a regime is killing its own citizens in broad daylight.  It has said unequivocally on television that it wants to kill its own citizens.  So this is unprecedented.  It’s very rare to hear a leader declare his intentions in such a manner, and I think we should take it seriously.”  [Cecily Hilleary, “Libya:  Is Military Intervention a Viable Option?, Voice of America, March 2, 2011]

The popularity of the idea of U.S. action in Libya was manifested by a non-binding resolution that received unanimous support in the U.S. Senate on March 1st which “urges the United Nations Security Council to take such further action as may be necessary to protect civilians in Libya from attack, including the possible imposition of a no-fly zone over Libyan territory.”  Although not calling for unilateral American action, any UN involvement would invariably rely heavily on United States air power.

Furthermore, in Europe, usually the bastion of anti-war feeling, there is even stronger support for military intervention than in the United States.  President Nicolas Sarkozy of France has taken the lead here and France has become the first major power to offer official recognition to the rebel  Libyan National Council as the legitimate representative of the Libyan people.  Support in Europe for military involvement even has firm backing from leftist and the Green Parties. [ Jean Bricmont, “Libya and the Return of Humanitarian Imperialism,” CounterPunch, March 8, 2011; Diana Johnstone, “Libya: Is This Kosovo All Over Again?,” CounterPunch, March 7, 2011 ]

And, on March 12, the Arab League voted to back a no-fly zone over Libya and recognized the  rebel movement as the country’s legitimate government, which increased the pressure on the United States to intervene.

Neocons expressed their support for a more militant U.S. stance on Libya in a February 25 open letter to President Obama

Neoconservatives Bill Kristol, Robert Kagan, and Dan Senor – FPI

from the Foreign Policy Initiative (FPI), a two-year-old neoconservative group that is often looked upon as the successor to the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), which had pushed for the war on Iraq.  The organization’s directorship  is comprised of  neocon stalwarts:  Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol; Brookings Institution fellow Robert Kagan; former Iraq Coalition Provisional Authority spokesman Dan Senor; and former Undersecretary of Defense for Policy and Ambassador to Turkey, Eric Edelman.  Kagan and Kristol had co-founded and directed PNAC.

In addition to these aforementioned individuals, other neocons signing the FPI document included  Elliott Abrams, Paul Wolfowitz, Max Boot, Eliot Cohen, Thomas Donnelly, Reuel Marc Gerecht, John Hannah, Michael Makovsky, Joshua Muravchik, Danielle Pletka, John Podhoretz, and Randy Scheunemann.

The FPI letter, reminiscent of missives sent by PNAC and other neocon ad hoc committees to Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush advocating militant action toward Saddam Hussein, proposed  a series of actions for the United States and NATO to take against the Libyan dictator, which included the establishment of a no-fly zone, naval control of Libyan waters to prevent sea attacks against civilians, the freezing of Libyan government assets, a consideration of a temporary halt to importation of Libyan oil, and the  immediate provision of humanitarian aid.  The letter asserted that failure to take more aggressive action “will cast doubt on the commitment of the United States and Europe to basic principles of human rights and freedom.”  The letter maintained that “[t]here is no time for delay and indecisiveness” and that “clear U.S. leadership” is required.

Other neocons who have expressed support for a U.S. enforced no-fly zone against Libya have included John Bolton, Charles Krauthammer, Michael Ledeen, and Richard Perle.  For Bolton this represents a 180 degree change from his outright opposition to the uprising in Egypt which he held would bring about the rule of the anti-American Islamist Muslim Brotherhood.  And Richard Perle had actually been lobbying in favor of the Gaddafi regime around the time in 2006 when the U.S. removed Libya from a list of nations that sponsor terrorism and restored full diplomatic relations.

Most advocates of the military action against Gaddafi view it simply in humanitarian terms—as a way of stopping a brutal, crazed dictator from slaughtering his own people and thus allowing for human freedom and democracy to prevail.  And this is how the neoconservatives are presenting it.  For example, Bill Kristol in criticizing Secretary of Defense Robert Gates for opposing U.S. military intervention in Libya, focused on its humanitarian aspect:  “Is it right to characterize an attack on the Gaddafi regime’s air defenses and airplanes, and the execution of a no-fly zone that would protect the Libyan people from Gaddafi , as ‘an attack on Libya’?  Can’t we distinguish a regime that’s lost whatever legitimacy it once had from the nation that regime is destroying and the people that regime is terrorizing?”

[“Gates’ successor should understand that our power is a force for good in the world, says FPI Director William Kristol,” The Weekly Standard, March 5, 2011, http://tinyurl.com/kristolgates]

It can be seen that most advocates of United States intervention in Libya perceive it as being (1) fundamentally humanitarian; (2) very limited in scope; and (3) dealing with a rather unique situation.  The neocons, however, likely perceive it in broader strategic terms.  For them, United States action against Libya would serve to revive their stalled Middle East agenda by providing the ideal justification for the U.S. to become involved militarily in the internal affairs of Iran, currently their (and Israel’s) major target, which they so far have been unsuccessful in achieving.  Neocons have pointed out that the democratic wave threatens the Islamic regime in Iran, which they certainly want the United States to facilitate.  As Michael Ledeen put it at the time of the revolt against Mubarak’s regime in Egypt:  “if we’re going to praise the Tunisian and Egyptian freedom fighters, all the more reason to hail the true martyrs in Iran.”

[Michael Ledeen, “Egypt: Revolution? By Whom? For What?,” January 28, 2011 ]

That neocons would exploit any U.S. intervention in Libya to justify intervention in Iran is underscored by  continued propagandizing about the alleged Iranian nuclear threat.  For example, last month, a neocon-inspired fearmongering documentary, Iranium, was released, which was screened across the U.S., including at AMC Theatres, the second largest movie theater chain in North America.  It portrays Iran as a brutal totalitarian state and the mastermind behind world terrorism, including the alleged training of Al Qaeda terrorists.  The documentary implies that Iran strives for global domination and that it would possibly use nuclear weapons against the U.S. and  Western Europe.  It  calls for “crippling sanctions” against Iran and holds that “if economic pressure is not successful then military force may be utilized.”

Iranium features neocons and their fellow travelers,  such as Bernard Lewis, a scholar on the history of Islam and the Middle East and one of the intellectual gurus of the neocons;  James Woolsey, the CIA director under President Bill Clinton; John Bolton, former Ambassador to the UN in the George W. Bush administration; Frank Gaffney, founder and president of the American Center for Security Policy; Dore Gold, former Israeli Ambassador; Harold Rhode, a specialist on Iran and a long-time Pentagon official who helped to set up what became the Office of Special Plans, which provided some of the most extreme propaganda to justify the invasion of Iraq; Michael Ledeen, a veteran neocon who has focused on Iran and  authored Accomplice to Evil: Iran and the War Against the West; Reuel Marc Gerecht, senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, who was previously a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and director of the Middle East Initiative at PNAC; and Kenneth Timmerman, executive director of the Foundation for Democracy in Iran.

Just as in the case of their propaganda build-up to the war on Iraq, the neocons are appealing to both democratic idealism and fear regarding Iran (and would, in all likelihood, greatly intensify this effort should the U.S. intervene militarily in Libya), so as to win over two different  audiences for their cause.  The humanitarian approach simply echoes and amplifies the view many liberals hold on the subject, though many are reticent about actually launching wars.  The fear approach appeals to the national self-interest of  conservatives and more non-ideological people.

If the United States should make any type of military attack on Libya, and if that attack in any way could be portrayed as successful (which would require far less than the establishment of a new non-Gaddafi democratic regime) immense pressure could be brought to bear on President Obama to take the same militant approach towards Iran.  Neocons are already arguing that the current democratic upheavals in Libya and the Middle East vindicate the neocon-inspired “Bush freedom agenda.”  Since Bush’s agenda involved the use of force in addition to ideas there is the definite implication that this should also be applied when needed.  And, if the United States intervened militarily in Libya, it would have once again ignored international law’s prohibition of initiating military force against a sovereign country, further helping to establish the precedent that international law’s position on this mater is passé and thus making opposition to such aggressive wars more difficult.  (Most wars in recent times have been justified, at least in part, with a “humanitarian” rationale; even Hitler went to war against Poland on the grounds that it was oppressing its German minority.)

Should Obama attempt to resist calls to intervene militarily in Iran, he would likely face charges of  hypocrisy and outright indifference to American security. For it likely would be argued that the Iranian situation is far worse than that which had existed in Libya, because unlike Libya, Iran poses a threat which reaches far beyond its borders,  even affecting U.S. security.  The neocons have already argued that Iran threatens to poison the other democratic uprisings in the Middle East and move them in the direction of anti-American Islamism.  If Iran were successful in the latter effort, they maintain, the inhabitants of those countries who overthrew their old rulers would suffer even  more under a totalitarian Islamist state.  And even worse from the standpoint of American security, the creation of Iran-friendly regimes in the region would enable Iran to exercise  hegemonic power over the Middle East sources of oil.  In achieving such regional hegemony, Iran would control the world’s oil spigot posing a grave threat to the United States and the industrialized West and be in a much better position to enhance its budding nuclear program.

The aforementioned scenario is not hypothetical and largely represents neocon thinking at this time.  The neocons have expressed concern as to why the U.S. is making no effort to take advantage of the revolutionary ferment in Iran to bring about  regime change and  continue to excoriate the Obama administration for failing to take action  there during the popular protests following the disputed 2009 Iranian presidential election.  [An editorial at that time (June 29, 2009) in The Weekly Standard, co-authored by Bill Kristol, was titled “Resolutely Irresolute: Obama dithers while Tehran burns.” ]

If the U.S. opts to intervene in Libya, only an obvious failure would definitely serve to prevent an attempted replication in Iran.  Thus, while the uprisings in the Middle East have threatened to lead to democratically-elected governments that, in some instances, would be more hostile to Israel than their autocratic predecessors, the neocons still have a way of  making the ultimate regional outcome a net positive for what they regard as Israel’s fundamental security interests.

Stephen J. Sniegoski, Ph.D. earned his doctorate in American history,with a focus on American foreign policy, at the University of Maryland. His focus on the neoconservative involvement in American foreign policy antedates September 11,and his first major work on the subject, “The War on Iraq: Conceived in Israel” was published February 10, 2003, more than a month before the American attack. He is the author of “The Transparent Cabal: The Neoconservative Agenda, War in the Middle East, and the National Interest of Israel”. Read more articles by Stephen J. Sniegoski. Transparent Cabal/ An Exclusive Interview with Stephen Sniegoski, author of The Transparent Cabal

Read more:

Arab League Calls on UN to Impose No Fly Zone over Libya

View the original article at Veterans Today

Related Posts with Thumbnails

Posted in Civil Rights and Privacy, Middle East, Politics, Television Video & Film.

Tagged with , , , , , , .

Support #altnews & keep Dark Politricks alive

Remember I told you over 5 years ago that they would be trying to shut down sites and YouTube channels that are not promoting the "Official" view. Well it's happening big time. Peoples Channels get no money from YouTube any more and Google is being fishy with their AdSense giving money for some clicks but not others. The time is here, it's not "Obama's Internet Cut Off Switch" it's "Trumps Sell Everyones Internet Dirty Laundry Garage Sale".

It's not just Google/YouTube defunding altenative chanels (mine was shut), but Facebook is also removing content, shutting pages, profiles and groups and removing funds from #altnews that way as well. I was recently kicked off FB and had a page "unpublished" with no reason given. If you don't know already all Facebooks Private Messages and Secret Groups are still analysed and checked for words related to drugs, sex, war etc against their own TOS. Personally IU know there are undercover Irish police moving from group to group cloning peoples accounts and getting people booted. Worse than that I know people in court at the moment for the content they had on their secret private group. Use Telegrams secret chat mode to chat on, or if you prefer Wickr. Or if you need to, buy a dumb phone with nothing for the NSA to hack into if you are that paranoid. Ensure it has no GPS tracking on it and the battery can be removed. These are usually built for old people to get used to technology storing only a set of numbers to call. However they have no games, applications to install and other ways people can exploit the computer tracking device you carry round with you most of the day.

So if your not supporting this site already which brings you news from the Left to the Right (really the same war mongering bollox) then I could REALLY do with some..

Even if it's just £5 or tick the monthly subscription box and throw a few pound my way each month, it will be much appreciated. Read on to find out why.

Why?

Any support to keep this site would be appreciated. You could set up a monthly subscription for £2 like some people do or you could pay a one off donation as a gift.
I am not asking you to pay me for other people's articles, this is a clearing house as well as place to put my own views out into the world. I am asking for help to write more articles like my recent false flag gas attack to get WWIII started in Syria, and Trump away from Putin. Hopefully a few missiles won't mean a WikiLeaks release of that infamous video Trump apparently made in a Russian bedroom with Prostitutes. Also please note that this article was written just an hour after the papers came out, and I always come back and update them.

If you want to read JUST my own articles then use the top menu I have written hundreds of articles for this site and I host numerous amounts of material that has seen me the victim of hacks, DOS plus I have been kicked off multiple hosting companies, free blogging sites, and I have even had threats to cease and desist from the US armed forces. Therefore I have to pay for my own server which is NOT cheap. The more people who read these article on this site the more it costs me so some support would be much appreciated.

I have backups of removed reports shown, then taken down after pressure, that show collusion between nations and the media. I have the full redacted 28/29 pages from the 9.11 commission on the site which seems to have been forgotten about as we help Saudi Arabia bomb Yemeni kids hiding in the rubble with white phosphorus, an illegal weaapon. One that the Israeli's even used when they bombed the UN compound in Gaza during Operation Cast Lead. We complain about Syrian troops (US Controlled ISIS) using chemical weapons to kill "beautiful babies". I suppose all those babies we kill in Iraq, Yemen, Somalia and Syria are just not beautiful enough for Trumps beautiful baby ratio. Plus we kill about 100 times as many as ISIS or the Syrian army have managed by a factor of about 1000 to 1.

I also have a backup of the FOX News series that looked into Israeli connections to 9.11. Obviously FOX removed that as soon as AIPAC, ADL and the rest of the Hasbra brigade protested.

I also have a copy of the the original Liberal Democrats Freedom Bill which was quickly and quietly removed from their site once they enacted and replaced with some watered down rubbish instead once they got into power. No change to police tactics, protesting or our unfair extradition treaty with the USA but we did get a stop to being clamped on private land instead of the mny great ideas in the original.

So ANY support to keep this site running would be much appreciated! I don't have much money after leaving my job and it is a choice between shutting the server or selling the domain or paying a lot of money just so I can show this material.

Material like the FSB Bombings that put Putin in power or the Google no 1 spot when you search for protecting yourself from UK Police with "how to give a no comment interview". If you see any adverts that interest you then please visit them as it helps me without you even needing to give me any money. A few clicks per visit is all it takes to help keep the servers running and tag any tweets with alternative news from the mainstream with the #altnews hashtag I created to keep it alive!

However if you don't want to use the very obvious and cost free ways (to you) to help the site and keep me writing for it then please consider making a small donation. Especially if you have a few quid sitting in your PayPal account doing nothing useful. Why not do a monthly subscription for less money instead. Will you really notice £5 a month?


One Response

Stay in touch with the conversation, subscribe to the RSS feed for comments on this post.

  1. Hubert says

    Dear S Sniegoski! When you write this statement like: “even Hitler went to war against Poland on the grounds that it was oppressing its German minority”, you should explain the whole true about this, not some version of Hitler – German accusation about, because the reader do not know to the end of your article, if this was true or not.
    Germany with Jewish people (fake pretending Khazars, Ashkenazim) throughout the centuries leaved and prospers on false producing accusations against Poland and Polish people and in this matter no changes even to this present time. Germany removed Poland the most prosper, biggest and most populated country in Europe in its time, for 125 years from existence. They were practicing many methods to look good in the eyes of the world and to oppress shrink down this country, people and its elites to possible annihilation in versus Hitler…who started murder university professors like famous mathematician Stefan Banach and others. Before, there were many Hitler organized actions, like a Gliwitz operation, Pomerania operation with Jewish (fake) communist Stalin agents where Germans (or Stalin Jewish agents) dressed in Polish army uniform attacked Germans or Germans who spoke Polish pretending that are Polish attacked Germans. Some of these evidences come up after II World War from German archives, but for many Germans and its agents these facts still there are true, because of their constant German propaganda – hidden Nazism. In Alex Jones documentary film the War of Terror there is an original clip from their Gliwitz operation where German dressed in Polish uniforms attacked German Radio station in Gliwitz on the Polish border. Today Poland is ruled by Jewish (fake) excommunists, descendents of Stalin ordered Jews (fake) communist in 1945. – Now, they are again with cooperation with these hidden Nazis Germans against Polish nation. NWO is their new hope for the new destruction of their victims (Drank nach Osten – germ).
    God bless



Some HTML is OK

or, reply to this post via trackback.



css.php