America’s preparation for war in Iran and Syria has moved beyond the realm of speculation. Despite denials by the US President and his Secretary of State, war and occupation a’la Iraq appears to be inevitable.
Since it is acknowledged that America’s foreign policy is firmly in the hands of likudniks; and flowing from Israeli ‘insecurity’ vis-a-vis threats to its security from these countries, is it realistic to expect that the Bush administration will once again be committing its vast military arsenal to impose regime-changes?
The convergence of interests between the United States and the Jewish state dictates much of the ‘logic’ emanating from the White House as well as the Pentagon. That much of it is illogical, has no bearing on the decisions which ultimately result in enormous pain and hardship for countless millions of innocent victims.
While Israel has begun to realise that its expansionist policies have been severely hampered and that the cost factor in terms of public opinion has been exorbitant, it also is aware that its continued existence as an apartheid state is contingent on the policies executed by hardline neo-cons. Their over-bearing presence in key portfolios, despite being controversial and morally repugnant, is therefore deemed necessary.
This is further evidenced by the nominations of hardline right-wing ideologues to key posts. Paul Wolfowitz as head of the World Bank; John Negroponte as Bush’s new Intelligence Czar and the UN-hater John Bolton as the ambassador there.
South African analyst Allister Sparks aptly describes this as an American revolution with two main objectives. "One is to roll back the last vestiges of American liberalism", while the other is " ‘to light the fires of freedom throughout the world’ " – a metaphor from the US President’s inaugural address that "conveys the notion of aggressive intervention to reorganise the rest of the world from the base of American power".
The current debate surrounding Bolton as Bush’s choice reveals a great deal about this ‘logic’. Here we have a man who has been described as bullying, abrasive and above all a strong supporter of Israel. Recent media reports indicate that probes into his tough dictatorial style also extends to allegations that Bolton took part in unauthorised meetings with Israeli officials. Also his unpatriotic conduct which prevented a State Department memo accusing Israel of violating American arms-export laws from reaching the desk of then secretary of state Colin Powell, has come under scrutiny.
These violations are so serious that Bolton’s status as Israel’s inside man is beyond question. Gary Leupp, a Professor of History at Tufts University, in his study on UN Resolution 3379 of 1975 which described Zionism as a form of racism, points out that Bolton’s role in rescinding it in 1991 is being applauded on various right wing blogs as sufficient validation of Bush’s UN choice.
It is necessary to recall that in 1962, the USA opposed resolution 1761, which condemned apartheid South Africa. It is much the same logic of that era, which championed Zionism, while opposing the anti-apartheid movement!
The manner and method of pro-Israeli lobbies in America, which openly claim credit for initiating and driving processes ultimately resulting in legislation on issues such as ‘terrorism’ and the ‘Patriot Act’, is a manifestation of the ‘logic’ propelling Bush, as it did Clinton and other American presidents before him.
Fresh media reports detailing a Pentagon analyst being charged with disclosing US military secrets to employees of a pro-Israeli lobby group, known as Aipac, is the latest scandal to hit America’s neo-cons. The investigation may yet prove awkward for many of the other likudniks, including Wolfowitz and Douglas J. Feith – once again placing Israeli/US relations under the spotlight.