Skip to main content

Dr. Patrick Clawson is the Research Director for the 'highly respected' Washington Institute for Near East Policy. This Think Tank focuses on advocating Israeli interests within the greater Washington policymaking establishment. Like Israel, they don't happen to like Iran, and very much would like the United States to go to war with that country in support of what they perceive are joint U.S.-Israeli 'foreign policy interests'. But they have a problem. After the disasters of Iraq and Afghanistan, Washington policymakers are a little reticent about a new war. Especially given that Russia and China have both expressed their objections in most strenuous terms. Like, as in: World War III. Maybe. Perhaps. Don't f@#k with Iran because they're our friends (with a sh!t ton of oil) kind of stuff.

Currently the staff of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy have spent their time writing and publishing a report about Iranian nuclear weapons research that curiously spends the majority of content focusing on irrelevant facts about nuclear weapons production. Probably because for some weird reason they don't want to put in writing what they're willing to say on camera. Which strikes 'some people' as kind of stupid. But then some people say, being stupid is the prerogative of pompous Ph.Ds with too much warmongering on their minds.

That Iran lately has been found to have enriched uranium to 27% purity, which is short of the 90% needed to build a functional nuclear weapon but still worrisome, is not in doubt. That the Washington Institute for Near East Policy has anything objective to say on the matter is. Anyone who doubts this assessment should just go watch Dr. Clawson speak about his organization's report, the full event of which is embedded here:

In glowing terms Dr. Clawson suggests that the United States should provoke Iran into firing the first shot in order to effect a false justification for Just War:

His choice of terminology is particularly galling. Here are his words:

Some people might think that Mr. Roosevelt wanted to give us World War II, as David Mentioned, you may remember that he had to wait for Perl Harbor. 

Some people might think Mr. Wilson wanted to get us into World War I, you may recall he had to wait for the Lusitania Episode. 

Some people might think Mr. Johnson wanted to get us into Vietnam, you may recall he had to wait for the Gulf of Tonkin episode. 

We didn't go to war with Spain until the U.S.S. Maine exploded. 

And, may I point out, that Mr. Lincoln did not feel he could call out the army until Fort Sumpter was attacked. Which is why he ordered the commander of Fort Sumpter to do exactly that thing which South Carolinians had said would cause an attack.  

So, if in fact the Iranians aren't going to compromise, it would be best if somebody else started the war.

Let's untangle that tortured bit of logic.

Mr. Roosevelt certainly knew the war was coming, as did many others. The embargo with Japan was in response to overwhelming evidence of aggression throughout the Pacific. Germany and Japan, by their behavior, represented existential threats to the existence of the United States and had even parceled out U.S. land between themselves and their allies after a presumptive win. Like Mr Churchill before, who was by the bombing of Pearl Harbor himself experiencing first hand the danger of an ascendent Germany under Hitler, Mr. Roosevelt knew his time would come as well. As would America's. But Mr. Roosevelt did not have to provoke Japan into taking that first strike. Japan struck secretly and with forethought. And this is clear from Mr. Roosevelt's outrage during his Declaration of War address to congress. A Day That Will Live in Infamy, indeed.

Similarly, Mr. Wilson knew some kind of event would likely happen to draw him into World War I. The German embassy had even purchased advertisements warning Lusitania's travelers what might await them (see: Wikipedia Entry on the Lusitania):

With Regard to the Gulf of Tonkin incident, then Defense Secretary Robert McNamara was quoted in Errol Morris' documentary Fog of War as having said that he and President Johnson had received conflicting reports from the field over whether a torpedo had actually been fired. But they thought it had. So President Johnson went to Congress and requested authority to escalate the Vietnamese conflict in response. However, based on Mr. McNamara's statement it can't fairly be claimed that he and President Johnson arranged for the Gulf of Tonkin incident in order to escalate the war. Perhaps they took advantage of it. Perhaps not. But they certainly didn't arrange it.

With regard to the Spanish-American war, the U.S.S. Maine exploded for unknown reasons. Mr. McKinley didn't know why, but it was reasonable at that time to assume a Spanish attack. And there's no doubt the administration supported Cuban resistance to Spanish occupation. For understandable reasons. Like when Cuba under Castro had formed an alliance with our primary enemy the Soviet Union, a foreign nation with a formidable military presence held land and basing close to United States territorial waters and shores. Spain certainly was no Soviet Union. But they were a colonial power with a history of European conflicts and known for their abuse of the Cuban peoples. So the Maine exploded, America kicked some Spanish ass, and the Treaty of Paris was signed transferring Cuba and other territories to the United States. But it can't be said that Mr. McKinley provoked this war. He did not arrange for the U.S.S. Maine to explode.

And finally, with regard to the South Carolinian attack on Fort Sumter, Mr. Lincoln certainly knew an attack was coming. Fort Moultrie had already been abandoned after South Carolina seceded, Fort Sumpter was unprepared without weapons, munitions or supplies, and surrounded. Mr. Lincoln tried to resupply the fort, but was repelled by enemy forces. That's a pretty good indication that the enemy doesn't want your forces where you've got them stranded behind enemy lines. But it can't fairly be said that Mr. Lincoln arranged for South Carolina to bombard Fort Sumter, and thus fire the first salvos to begin the Civil War. He just knew the time was drawing near.

But let's ask ourselves, in what historical period could one say that a U.S. president had a clear idea that a chosen enemy hadn't - in fact - first first and yet chose outright war regardless? Who might that have been? And under what circumstances? Why, I think that historical precedent is pretty recent. Hey, wasn't that the second Gulf War? George W. Bush!!!

A war initiated based on the same rationale of a looming threat from a rogue nation researching weapons of mass destruction. In fact, it appears like exactly the same propaganda game plan in the looming run up to the Iran War as was promulgated by the Bush Administration just before the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Remember Mr. Bush's "Smoking gun in the form of a mushroom cloud" warning that never happened? Here, it's only 7 seconds long, give the video a whirl.

Yet America is weary of war. Especially wars fought on a false pretense of claims known to be untrue, as was the Iraq War. And here comes an Israeli lobbyist publicly recommending that the United States pick another fight just to ensure war begins? Hey, he slyly says, it doesn't actually have to be true. Just make sure they fire the first shot! Or at least the public thinks they did. Great. Exactly what Americans need. The nation lost trillions of dollars, thousands of U.S. soldiers' lives, and have absolutely nothing to show for it. Not even the thanks of Israel, who - through your lobbying efforts and that of AIPAC seem intent on dragging us into yet another war on that nation's behalf.

Hell, Israel's Prime Minister Netanyahu just pushed himself onto the U.S. Sunday Morning political talk circuit stage a few weeks ago, ostensibly to promote this crazy Iran War policy. But there was also an obvious surreptitiously partisan angle to his actions. By making his statements only weeks away from a U.S. presidential election, he intervened and brazenly promoted the election of a sitting President's competitor. Whether Romney or Obama ought to hold that big chair is irrelevant. What matters is that the Prime Minister of Israel ought to get the hell out of U.S. elections, as that's not any of his business.

So Mr. Netanyahu, in speaking for his nation, again screams wolf, tacitly implying that one candidate over another might better deal with slaying that beast. But yet, like child's tale The Boy Who Cried 'Wolf', after screaming for help so many times others are weary to respond, there comes a time when that wolf might really appear. The United States is weary of war. Iraq was not the wolf we were led to believe. It's quite possible that Iran, unlike Iraq, may well be building nuclear weapons. They could be that wolf. Were I them, I'd certainly be doing so. Look how North Korea put a stop to U.S. interference once they established their nuclear capability by testing a weapon. Nobody f*cks with North Korea any more. Why wouldn't Iran want that? Woof. Woof.

The thing is, would a military strike against Iran's nuclear facilities really be enough to stop the supposed Iranian nuclear weapons development program? Nor according to this report by the Center for Strategic and International Studies, which concluded that neither a U.S. led conventional bombing campaign, nor an Israeli fired nuclear first strike, could achieve more than delaying an Iranian nuclear program by a few years. So what does Mr. Netanyahu want? Another war of aggression leading to regime change? Zbigniew Brzezinski certainly doesn't think an Israeli or American attack on Iran is a good idea. He claims that Russia and China could respond, leading to 'world destabilization' that could lead to the end of Israel as a state. Which sounds an awful lot like World War III. Good plan. NOT!

Mr. Clawson, your remarks have been interpreted by so-called 'Internet Crazies' to mean that you expect the United States to initiate a 'false flag' attack in order to instigate war with Iran. These remarks of yours from that 1hr30min lecture have been condensed into a two minute form where the author's title says exactly that. It's tough to disagree with their interpretation. Your equivocal statement, "I'm not recommending that," notwithstanding, your words are plainly understood.

What a wonderful way to sell your policy. The nuts who think Israel, and their intelligence agency Mossad, planned up 9/11 and sold it to Cheney in order to instigate the Iraq War, you've given them some fodder to chew on here to further such beliefs.  And after reading that Project for a New American Century document, which suggested that America needed a 'new Pearl Harbor' in order to achieve a policy of regime change across the Middle East, even a sane person might suspect bad faith in using those terrible events to further an unrelated policy aim. That PNAC document was written and promoted by most of the NeoConservative members of the Bush Administration's foreign policy team. Which led to the disaster of Iraq. Though you probably don't think it was that much of a disaster, because Israel didn't pay for it. Well, it's widely circulated throughout the Internet. And, there's plenty of video evidence floating around of the various war falsehoods claimed by officials by both the Bush and Obama administrations.

Just how does this policy benefit U.S. citizens or America? When a foreign Prime Minister demands and gets air time on major television news programs to promote a war agenda during election season, implying support for one candidate over another, shouldn't U.S. citizens worry? And let's be clear, for this proposed new war, Mr. Netanyahu expects the United States treasury to support and sustain its costs, and the American people to effect and die in battle enacting its policy. Regardless of even the loss to world moral and ethical standing of the American nation.

After the Iraq and Afghanistan debacles, after the Abu Ghraib prison scandal, after the Guantanamo Bay gulag, and just recently President Obama asserts the so-called right to execute citizens extrajudicially, without any due process whatsoever... all in just over a decade. How the mighty have fallen. And now here is proposed yet another set of lies to justify another war that would further lead America down Rome's path to that of a failed republic turned doomed empire, and ultimately... oblivion. Thanks Israel, AIPAC, and Patrick Clawson's Washington Institute for Near East Policy. With friends like you, America should have paid the Soviet's bar tab and saved ourselves the trouble. It might have been an evil empire, but at least they weren't crazy.

To give you an idea what I really think about you, please watch this lovely video I created:

F@#k You Patrick Clawson

Major sources used for the video:

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  tips for opposing another irrational war (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    zadarum, happymisanthropy
  •  I too oppose yet another stupid war (0+ / 0-)

    that we don't need to fight, cannot win and which will likely have the exact opposite outcome than we would supposedly desire.

    However, I'm not sure that distorting history is the best way to prevent it. There's ample evidence to suggest that the Maine was a false flag and that LBJ knew he was lying about the Gulf of Tonkin incident. What next, claiming that James Polk had valid reason to attack Mexico?

    "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

    by kovie on Thu Oct 11, 2012 at 08:00:32 AM PDT

    •  False Flags? (0+ / 0-)

      - I've never read that the Maine was a false flag. There's evidence that the munitions hold exploded, but that doesn't mean it was intentional. Who says it was a false flag and based on what evidence?

      - McNamara's words from Fog of War are included as source. Take them as you will.

      •  I misspoke (0+ / 0-)

        That the US deliberately sunk the Maine is a CT, I agree. But that it was used by some in the media and political leadership to justify the war and likely helped start the war is beyond dispute. The Iraq war was justified in much the same way. That's what I meant when I said false flag, which I used loosely.

        As for Tonkin, most accounts I've read indicate that LBJ knowingly lied, and given that McNamara played an integral role in escalating the war, I'd think one has to take anything he says with a huge grain of salt.

        "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

        by kovie on Thu Oct 11, 2012 at 08:41:29 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  On Gulf of Tonkin (0+ / 0-)

          What are these accounts?

          There's McNamara's words on the public record. He says that the first attack was real, and that the second attack, which the Gulf of Tonkin congressional resolution was based upon was misunderstood and turned out to have not happened. Yet the administration drove forward quickly and obtained a wide-reaching congressional resolution.

          I don't doubt that LBJ wanted to escalate the war. That doesn't mean he arranged to present false testimony or that he arranged an attack to have taken place in order to pursue his policy choice.

          Anyway, this is a side issue. The fact is that an IR specialist for one of the middle east think tanks, well known as an Israeli lobbyist, is promoting the US create the circumstances for attack. Is that not more relevant than this side debate?

  •  A few comments on your excellent (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Political TroubleMaker

    post, or at least generally excellent. The Spanish American war was ginned up in great part by the Hearst media (newspaper) empire. Most Americans supported the war but McKinley was uncertain had to be pushed. The sinking of the Maine was an accident.

    The Japanese argued that the embargoes imposed on it since the early 30s were an attack of war and that justified their attacks on Dec 7, 1941. There is significant doubt over whether or not Japan was trying to serve notice of the attack when it happened. On the other hand the Japanese strategy was similar to the way that the Japanese beat the Russians in 1906.

    The South had been threatening war and secession ever since John Brown. South Carolina threatened secession in 1830. The attack on Fort Sumter was well planned. In fact the Confederates invited an old politician from Virginia to fire the first shot at 6:00AM after warning the fort. The fact that the federal government tried to resupply the fort, which was federal property was no reason to start the Civil War. In fact Lincoln promised that if federal property was left unmolested the North would not move against the South militarily. The European powers told Lincoln's government in no uncertain terms that if the North fired first the Europeans would not respect the blockade of the South.

    The Zimmerman Telegram could have been seen as an act of war against the United States by encouraging Mexico to fight us with German help. Other American ships had been sunk by the German Navy under all conditions warning or not. And the Lusitania did have weapons aboard and was in the blockade zone around Ireland and Britain.

    America was already involved in Vietnam back to the Eisenhower days and Johnson tried to fight a limited war and gradually notch up the pressure. The build up from the Gulf of Token until 1968 was steady and measured. We did not just ship 500,000 troops at once like we did the in the Gulf war of 91. Johnson tried to bomb North Vietnam out of South Vietnam. It was a failed strategy. But it was not Gung Ho, all in, the way the military wanted.

  •  So, that's my uncle. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Obviously we disagree on a lot.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site