SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
world war iii
The ICC Arrest Warrant for Netanyahu Is Also an Indictment of US Policy and Complicity
Ultimately, this is the story of how the Israel lobby undermined America, wrecked the Middle East, and set a series of international crimes against humanity in motion.
Nov 21, 2024
It’s official now. America’s closest ally, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the one accorded more than 50 standing ovations in Congress just months ago, is under indictment by the International Criminal Court for crimes against humanity and war crimes. America must take note: the U.S. Government is complicit in Netanyahu’s war crimes and has fully partnered in Netanyahu’s violent rampage across the Middle East.
For 30 years the Israel Lobby has induced the U.S. to fight wars on Israel’s behalf designed to prevent the emergence of a Palestinian State. Netanyahu, who first came to power in 1996, and has been prime minister for 17 years since then, has been the main cheerleader for U.S.-backed wars in the Middle East. The result has been a disaster for the U.S. and a bloody catastrophe not only for the Palestinian people but for the entire Middle East.
These have not been wars to defend Israel, but rather wars to topple governments that oppose Israel’s oppression of the Palestinian people. Israel viciously opposes the two-state solution called for by international law, the Arab Peace Initiative, the G20, the BRICS, the OIC, and the UN General Assembly. Israel’s intransigence, and its brutal suppression of the Palestinian people, has given rise to several militant resistance movements since the beginning of the occupation. These movements are backed by several countries in the region.
The obvious solution to the Israel-Palestine crisis is to implement the two-state solution and to demilitarize the militant groups as part of the implementation process.
Israel’s approach, especially under Netanyahu, is to overthrow foreign governments that oppose Israel’s domination, and recreate the map of a “New Middle East” without a Palestinian State. Rather than making peace, Netanyahu makes endless war.
What is shocking is that Washington has turned the U.S. military and federal budget over to Netanyahu for his disastrous wars. The history of the Israel lobby’s complete takeover of Washington can be found in the remarkable new book by Ilan Pappé, Lobbying for Zionism on Both Sides of the Atlantic (2024).
Rather than making peace, Netanyahu makes endless war.
Netanyahu repeatedly told the American people that they would be the beneficiaries of his policies. In fact, Netanyahu has been an unmitigated disaster for the American people, bleeding the U.S. Treasury of trillions of dollars, squandering America’s standing in the world, making the U.S. complicit in his genocidal policies, and bringing the world closer to World War III.
If Trump wants to make America great again, the first thing he should do is to make America sovereign again, by ending Washington’s subservience to the Israel Lobby.
The Israel Lobby not only controls the votes in Congress but places hardline backers of Israel into key national security posts. These have included Madeleine Albright (Secretary of State for Clinton), Lewis Libby (Chief of Staff of Vice President Cheney), Victoria Nuland (Deputy National Security Advisor of Cheney, NATO Ambassador of Bush Jr., Assistant Secretary of State for Obama, Under-Secretary of State for Biden), Paul Wolfowitz (Under-Secretary of Defense for Bush Sr., Deputy Secretary of Defense for Bush Jr.), Douglas Feith (Under-Secretary of Defense for Bush Jr.), Abram Shulsky (Director of the Office of Special Plans, Department of Defense for Bush Jr.), Elliott Abrams (Deputy National Security Advisor for Bush Jr.), Richard Perle (Chairman of the Defense National Policy Board for Bush Jr.), Amos Hochstein (Senior Advisor to the Secretary of State for Biden), and Antony Blinken (Secretary of State for Biden).
Netanyahu has been an unmitigated disaster for the American people, bleeding the U.S. Treasury of trillions of dollars, squandering America’s standing in the world, making the U.S. complicit in his genocidal policies, and bringing the world closer to World War III.
In 1995, Netanyahu described his plan of action in his book Fighting Terrorism. To control terrorists (Netanyahu’s characterization of militant groups fighting Israel’s illegal rule over the Palestinians), it’s not enough to fight the terrorists. Instead, it’s necessary to fight the “terrorist regimes” that support such groups. And the U.S. must be the one to lead:
The cessation of terrorism must therefore be a clear-cut demand, backed up by sanctions and with no prizes attached. As with all international efforts, the vigorous application of sanctions to terrorist states must be led by the United States, whose leaders must choose the correct sequence, timing, and circumstances for these actions.
As Netanyahu told the American people in 2001 (reprinted as the 2001 foreword to Fighting Terrorism):
The first and most crucial thing to understand is this: There is no international terrorism without the support of sovereign states. International terrorism simply cannot be sustained for long without the regimes that aid and abet it… Take away all this state support, and the entire scaffolding of international terrorism will collapse into dust. The international terrorist network is thus based on regimes—Iran, Iraq, Syria, Taliban Afghanistan, Yasir Arafat’s Palestinian Authority, and several other Arab regimes, such as the Sudan.
All of this was music to the ears of the neocons in Washington, who similarly subscribed to U.S.-led regime change operations (through wars, covert subversion, U.S.-led color revolutions, violent coups, etc.) as the main way to deal with perceived U.S. adversaries.
After 9/11, the Bush Jr. neocons (led by Cheney and Rumsfeld) and the Bush Jr. insiders of the Israel Lobby (led by Wolfowitz and Feith), teamed up to remake the Middle East through a series of U.S.-led wars on Netanyahu’s targets in the Middle East (Lebanon, Iran, Iraq, Syria) and Islamic East Africa (Libya, Somalia, and Sudan). The role of the Israel Lobby in stoking these wars of choice is described in detail in Pappe’s new book.
The neocon-Israel Lobby war plan was shown to General Wesley Clark on a visit to the Pentagon soon after 9/11. An officer pulled a paper from his desk and told Clark: "I just got this memo from the Secretary of Defense's office. It says we're going to attack and destroy the governments in 7 countries in five years—we're going to start with Iraq, and then we're going to move to Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran."
In 2002, Netanyahu pitched the war with Iraq to the American people and Congress by promising them that “If you take out Saddam, Saddam’s regime, I guarantee you that it will have enormous positive reverberations on the region[...] People sitting right next door in Iran, young people, and many others, will say the time of such regimes, of such despots is gone.”
A remarkable new insider account of Netanyahu’s role in spearheading the Iraq War also comes from retired Marine Command Chief Master Sargent Dennis Fritz, in his book Deadly Betrayal (2024). When Fritz was called to deploy to Iraq in early 2002, he asked senior military officials why the U.S. was deploying to Iraq, but he got no clear answer. Rather than lead soldiers into a battle he could not explain or justify, he left the service.
The neocon-Israel Lobby teamwork has marked one of the greatest global calamities of the 21st century.
In 2005, Fritz was invited back to the Pentagon, now as a civilian, to assist Under-Secretary Douglas Feith in the declassification of documents about the war, so that Feith could use them to write a book about the war. Fritz discovered in the process that the Iraq War had been spurred by Netanyahu in close coordination with Wolfowitz and Feith. He learned that the purported U.S. war aim, to counter Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction, was a cynical public relations gimmick led by an Israel Lobby insider, Abram Shulsky, to garner U.S. public support for the war.
Iraq was to be the first of the seven wars in five years, but as Fritz explains, that follow-up wars were delayed by the anti-U.S. Iraqi insurgency. Nonetheless, the U.S. eventually went to war or backed wars against Iraq, Syria, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Lebanon. In other words, the U.S. carried out Netanyahu’s plans—except for Iran. To this day, indeed to this hour, Netanyahu works to stoke a U.S. war on Iran, one that could open World War III, either by Iran making the breakthrough to nuclear weapons, or by Iran’s ally, Russia, joining such a war on Iran’s side.
The neocon-Israel Lobby teamwork has marked one of the greatest global calamities of the 21st century. All of the countries attacked by the U.S. or its proxies—Iraq, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Syria—now lie in ruins. Meanwhile, Netanyahu’s genocide in Gaza continues apace, and yet again the U.S. has opposed the unanimous will of the world (other than Israel) this week by vetoing a UN Security Council ceasefire resolution that was backed by the other 14 members of the U.N. Security Council.
The real issue facing the Trump Administration is not defending Israel from its neighbors, who call repeatedly, almost daily, for peace based on the two-state solution. The real issue is defending the U.S. from the Israel Lobby.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Israel Wants Its War With Iran—But If Netanyahu Not Stopped, They Might Spark World War III
The Israeli prime minister continues to wage war because war keeps him in power. He may burn the Middle East to the ground in the process.
Oct 03, 2024
Israel has assassinated the leader of Hezbollah and killed many of its members by way of booby-trapped pagers and walky-talkies. After a blitzkrieg bombing campaign, Israel once again invaded Lebanon this week to escalate its campaign against the paramilitary-cum-political party. Meanwhile, it continues to wage war against Hamas in Gaza. It has bombed various locations in Syria. And it has even attacked the Houthis in distant Yemen.
The Israeli government has never tried to hide its larger objective: weaken the sponsor of Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis. Israel is really fighting against Iran.
At the United Nations last week, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu displayed a map of the region labelled “The Curse.” It showed a swath of the Middle East in black that encompassed Iran, Syria, and Iraq, with outposts in Lebanon and Yemen.
“It’s a map of an arc of terror that Iran has created and imposed from the Indian Ocean to the Mediterranean,” Netanyahu declared. “Iran’s aggression, if it’s not checked, will endanger every single country in the Middle East, and many, many countries in the rest of the world, because Iran seeks to impose its radicalism well beyond the Middle East.”
Israel has not been content to launch attacks against Iranian proxies. Back in April, Israel struck Iran’s diplomatic compound in Damascus, killing three senior Revolutionary Guards (IRGC) officials. Over the summer, in a brazen violation of Iranian sovereignty, it detonated a bomb inside a guest house in Tehran to assassinate a top Hamas leader. And in the most recent aerial attack on Beirut that killed Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah, Israel also killed a top Iranian military official, Gen. Abbas Nilforushan of the IRGC.
These last two attacks have come after elections in July elevated a reformer to the presidency in Iran. They have come after Iran has given a number of indications that it is reevaluating its unremittingly hostile policy toward Israel. They have come after the Iranian government has showed signs of willingness to restart nuclear negotiations with the United States.
If Donald Trump wins the U.S. presidential election in November, Israel will once again have an ally that is equally committed to confronting Iran, militarily if necessary.
But if Kamala Harris wins, the stage will be set for a potential return to a détente in U.S.-Iranian relations.
Certainly, the Israeli government is interested in weakening both Hamas and Hezbollah. Certainly, it wants to push back against Iran on various fronts.
But perhaps the real motivation for Netanyahu right now in attacking Hezbollah and refusing a ceasefire in the conflict in Gaza is to goad Iran into retaliating and burying all hopes of a reconciliation between Washington and Tehran. This week, with Iran lobbing missiles at Israel, everything is so far going according to plan. What’s not yet clear is whether Netanyahu will reap a side benefit of making the Biden administration look foolish, thus elevating Trump’s electoral chances in November.
Iran’s Restraint
Imagine if Russia had somehow smuggled a bomb into Volodymyr Zelensky’s hotel room in Washington, DC and managed to assassinate him on his recent visit. The United States might very well use such an attack as a casus belli to declare war on Russia. The only thing that could stay Washington’s hand would be Russia’s nuclear arsenal and the potential for planetary annihilation.
Israel’s assassination of a Hamas official inside Iran at the end of July might have triggered an all-out war—if not for Israel’s nuclear arsenal. Of course, Tehran threatened revenge. Its retaliation for the attack on the Iranian compound in Syria, which took place two weeks later in mid-April, might have looked impressive: 300 missiles and drones aimed at Israel. But only a few evaded Israeli defenses, and there were no Israeli casualties.
Israel has an advantage over Iran in terms of intelligence and technology. How on earth did it smuggle a bomb into one of the most secure buildings in Iran and then trigger it at just the right moment to kill its target? And how did it manage to turn hundreds of pagers and walky-talkies into hand-held bombs that killed and injured Hezbollah operatives along with many Lebanese civilians? These were intelligence failures on the part of Iran and its proxies, to be sure, but they also reveal the patience, planning, and technological sophistication of the Israelis.
In other words, it’s not just Israel’s nukes that serve as deterrent.
In effect, Iran is practicing a policy of “strategic patience.” It knows that it’s outmatched in any conventional (or nuclear) conflict. In response to successful Israeli operations, its feckless missile attacks on Israel have been more theater than actual military campaign. In some cases, it has been even more restrained, for instance, after the death of three U.S. soldiers in Jordan in January when it instructed its allies not to escalate their attacks against U.S. targets.
In general, the successes that Iran and its allies have had against Israel have been in guerrilla warfare. “Hezbollah and Iran are conserving military resources and waiting for Israeli ground forces to enter a trap inside Lebanon territory,” former Iranian journalist Mohammad Mazhari concludes.
In its eagerness to “teach Hezbollah a lesson” and draw Iran into a wider war, Israeli forces may just be walking into that trap once again.
Change in Iran?
While Netanyahu beat the drum of the Iran threat at the UN, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian took a different tack in his speech to the General Assembly:
I embarked on my electoral campaign with a platform focused on “reform,” “national empathy,” “constructive engagement with the world,” and “economic development,” and was honored to gain the trust of my fellow citizens at the ballot box. I aim to lay a strong foundation for my country’s entry into a new era, positioning it to play a effective and constructive role in the evolving global order.
Pezeshkian also announced his willingness to work on reviving a nuclear agreement. What he said in private meetings was perhaps even more important. For instance, he promised to accept whatever agreement that Palestinians favored to end the conflict with Israel, which presumably includes the two-state solution that Iran has traditionally opposed because it would mean acknowledging Israel as a state.
Indeed, after replacing Ebrahim Raisi, who died suddenly in a helicopter crash last May, Pezeshkian has quietly charted a different trajectory for Iranian foreign policy. One important indication is the team that he has assembled. Head of the foreign policy team is Abbas Araghchi, who played a key role in orchestrating the 2015 nuclear deal with the United States and other countries. Javad Zarif, the face of Iran’s negotiating team that year, is now vice president for strategic affairs. The cabinet contains plenty of conservatives, but the foreign policy team is both ready and experienced in the politics of détente.
Outside observers ascribe Iran’s “tepid” response to attacks on Iranian territory and against allies like Hezbollah and Hamas to Iran’s relative weakness. “The biggest explanation appears to be simply that Iran is weaker than it wants the world to believe,” writes David Leonhardt in The New York Times. “And its leaders may recognize that they would fare badly in a wider war.”
Another explanation, however, is that the consensus inside Iran is shifting, not simply within the political establishment (which has swung from reformism to conservatism and back again) but within the governing religious bodies as well. This is not a doctrinal transformation so much as a coming to terms with different geopolitical realities, particularly within the Middle East.
Contrary to Netanyahu’s ominous presentation at the UN, Iran is not experiencing a massive expansion of its influence. To be sure, it can count on support from Syria, a significant share of Iraq’s population, and the three Hs: Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis. But Syria’s still a mess, Iraq is divided, and the three Hs are reeling.
Meanwhile, Sunni powers in the region like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Turkey are ascendant. The Abrahamic Accords, pushed by Trump and embraced by Biden, rallied Sunni powers like the United Arab Emirates and Morocco to recognize Israel. Saudi Arabia was next in line when Hamas disrupted the looming rapprochement by attacking Israel on October 7. So concerned was Iran about the prospect of the Abrahamic Accords cutting it out of regional geopolitics that it concluded its own détente with Saudi Arabia in 2023 after seven years of severed relations.
World War III?
The risk of regional escalation is large. This week, Iran fired missiles at Israel, though they have done limited damage. Israel wants an excuse to strike back against Iran, particularly against its nuclear complex. The United States has expanded its military footprint in the region as a visible sign of preparedness. Although Israel has declared that its invasion into Lebanon will be limited, the government has generally pursued maximalist goals—the destruction of Hamas and Hezbollah—even in the face of doubts from the Israeli Defense Forces.
The Israeli government aside, nobody wants a regional conflict. The Israeli government aside, everyone after October 7 has practiced a degree of restraint. Iran, in particular, has absorbed the kind of punishment that rarely goes without serious retaliation in today’s world of geopolitics. To a certain degree, it has satisfied demands both internally and externally for retaliation against Israel without inflicting any serious damage—like a short fired into the air in a duel. At some point, however, Iran might feel compelled to abandon its strategic patience and take more lethal aim at Israel.
To prevent a wider war, the Biden administration had best be conducting non-stop quiet discussions with Pezeshkian’s foreign policy team. Even while expressing support for Israel, the United States has to go over Israel’s head to negotiate with Iran. Benjamin Netanyahu is a problem that must be isolated somehow within Israel and somehow within the region.
But how to pry Netanyahu out of his office and put someone in his place with at least an ounce of pragmatism? The prime minister continues to wage war because war keeps him in power. So, too, did Antaeus draw strength from the earth until an opponent lifted him into the air to defeat him. That is the essential question today: figuring out a way to separate Netanyahu from war and thus deprive him of his power.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Russia's Lavrov Warns US That World War III Wouldn't Be Confined to Europe
"They have a mindset of a master sitting somewhere out there overseas and believing to be totally safe and secure, thinking that not only Ukrainians, but also... Europeans would be willing to do the dirty work and die for them."
Aug 28, 2024
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov on Tuesday warned the United States that if the war in Ukraine escalates into a wider military conflict, a potential World War III would not be limited to battlefields in Europe.
While taking questions from journalists two-and-a-half years after Russian President Vladimir Putin's invasion, Lavrov was asked to address recent reporting in The Guardian about Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy wanting to use long-range Storm Shadow missiles that "threaten Moscow and St. Petersburg" to force Russia to the negotiating table.
As the British newspaper explained: "Storm Shadow missiles were developed primarily by an Anglo-French collaboration and are made by European joint venture MBDA, which also has an Italian partner. But because some of its components are supplied by the U.S., the White House also has to agree to its use inside Russia. It has so far refused to do so, fearing an escalation of the conflict."
Lavrov declared that "this is blackmail, an attempt to pretend that the West seeks to avoid any excessive escalation. In reality, they are full of mischief. Avoiding escalation is not what the West is after. To put it into plain language, they are simply picking a fight."
The longtime Russian minister also pointed to various remarks from John Kirby, the White House national security communications adviser, along the lines of what he said Friday: "We've been watching escalation risks since the beginning of this conflict, and that ain't gonna change. We're always going to be concerned about the potential for the aggression in Ukraine to lead to escalation on the European continent."
Lavrov said that "for Americans, any talk about the Third World War comes down to something that would affect Europe alone, and God forbid if it ever happened. This is quite telling, since this idea reflects the mindset of the American planners and geostrategy experts who believe that they can simply sit the whole thing out. I think that it is important to understand in this situation that we have our own doctrine, including the one governing the use of nuclear weapons. An effort to update it is underway."
"Moreover, these Americans are well aware of the provisions it sets forth. This fact transpires from the Freudian slips they make when they say that having a Third World War would be a bad thing because they do not want Europe to suffer," he continued. "This is what this American mindset comes down to. They have a mindset of a master sitting somewhere out there overseas and believing to be totally safe and secure, thinking that not only Ukrainians, but also, as it turns out, Europeans would be willing to do the dirty work and die for them."
"We have long been hearing speculation about authorizing Ukraine to use not only the Storm Shadow missiles, but also U.S.-made long-range missiles," the minister noted. "Now, all we can do is confirm once again that playing with fire is a dangerous thing for the men and women in charge of nuclear weapons across the Western world, but they are playing with matches as if they never grew up."
While there are nine nuclear-armed nations, the United States and Russia collectively have roughly 90% of the global arsenal. Since the Kremlin launched its invasion in February 2022, as the U.S. and Europe have armed Ukraine's soldiers, Putin and other Russian officials—along with NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg—have stoked fears of nuclear weapons use.
Mikhail Sheremet, who represents Crimea—which Russia invaded and annexed from Ukraine a decade ago—in Russia's State Duma, toldTASS on Tuesday that the U.S. should consider the consequences of giving Ukrainian troops long-range cruise missiles.
"The ball is now in the U.S.' court but it's clearly finding it difficult to play the game because it will have to take reality into consideration and carefully weigh everything before passing the ball to Ukraine, which aims to drag the U.S. and Europe into a potential World War III," Sheremet told the Russian news agency.
"Undoubtedly, the U.S. will try to implement its far-reaching aggressive plans to provide cruise missiles to the Kyiv regime. They will probably try to do that through Europe, which they have under their thumb," he added. "But in any case, the price of this decision will be too high for them to pay, leading to the loss of their own statehood."
Earlier this month, Ukraine attacked Russia's Kursk region and "has carved out a slice of territory in the biggest foreign attack on Russia since World War II," Reutersreported Tuesday. As the outlet detailed:
Russia has said that Western weaponry, including British tanks and U.S. rocket systems, have been used by Ukraine in Kursk. Kyiv has confirmed using U.S. HIMARS missiles to take out bridges in Kursk.
Washington says it was not informed about Ukraine's plans ahead of the surprise incursion into Kursk. The United States has also said it did not take any part in the operation.
Multiple Russian government officials have made clear that they don't believe those U.S. claims.
Still, based on interviews that Anatol Lieven of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft recently conducted with "members of the Russian establishment, including former diplomats, members of think tanks, academics, and businesspeople, as well as a few members of the wider public," the majority of them want "an early cease-fire roughly along the existing battle lines."
"Most of my conversations took place before the Ukrainian invasion of the Russian province of Kursk. As far as I can make out, however, this Ukrainian success has not changed basic Russian calculations and views," Lieven wrote Tuesday for Foreign Policy.
"In the end, of course, Russia's negotiating position will be decided by Putin—with whom I did not speak," he acknowledged. "Nobody I spoke to in Moscow claimed to know for sure what Putin is thinking. However, the consensus was that while he made terrible mistakes at the start of the war, he is a pragmatist capable of taking military advice and recognizing military reality."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular