Did the Zionist Lobby Drive the U.S. Into the Iraq War?
At a March 3, 2003 anti-war forum in Reston, Virginia, Rep. James Moran (D-Va.) told a crowd of about 120 people, “If it were not for the strong support of the Jewish community for this war with Iraq, we [the United States] would not be doing this.”
The White House, several congressional Democratic leaders, the Republican Jewish Coalition, and the National Jewish Democratic Council condemned Moran’s remarks. Much of the mainstream media also chimed in with their condemnations of the seven-term congressman, and ultimately, he was forced to apologize.
In the 3/24/05 issue of the widely circulated and highly influential US News and World Report, editorialist Gloria Borger criticized Moran and attempted to rebut his claims.1 The article is very important because it expresses in a very simple way the ideological line put out by much of the mainstream media as to why, allegedly, one should not blame the Jewish-Zionist lobby for helping to drive the US into the Iraq war.
As we shall soon see, it was in fact the Jewish-Zionist power elite and their Gentile allies that were behind this push for war with Iraq. Although the evidence in support of this claim is abundant, it is rarely discussed in the mainstream US media tribute to the ability of the Jewish-Zionist power elite to tailor and even censor the news.
Before reading my rebuttal, I strongly urge the reader to study the Borger article so as to get a first hand understanding of her arguments. The essay begins by giving an account of what was said by critics of the Iraq war, like Congressman Moran and Pat Buchanan, about Jewish-Zionist involvement in the drive for an invasion of Iraq. In a tone of condemnation, Ms. Borger sarcastically claims: “In this conspiratorial world view, these men [the Jewish, neoconservative Iraq war architects] have a master plan connived years ago to do Israel’s bidding and get rid of Saddam Hussein.”
The major architect of the Iraq war, Paul Wolfowitz, did formulate a plan to invade Iraq years before it took place in 2003. In 1977, Wolfowitz was put to work on the Limited Contingency Study. Its ostensible purpose was to examine possible areas of threat in the Third World. Even as far back as the late 1970s, he claimed Iraq was a direct military threat. As Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia points out, the Limited Contingency Study laid the groundwork for the 2003 invasion of Iraq.2
The respected online source further points out that Wolfowitz’s attachments to Jewish-Zionist agendas are deep and go back a long way, even into his teen years good evidence that his plan for a US invasion of Iraq and the interests of Israel are linked.3
Borger herself offers evidence that these pro-war functionaries had a plan to invade Iraq years before the actual invasion took place. She writes: “But what of those Jewish neoconservative hawks lurking inside the [Bush] administration? Didn’t some of them write memos in the late 1990s calling for, among other things, the overthrow of Saddam? Yes.” Thank you Ms. Borger for bolstering my case.
Borger mentions Pat Buchanan’s comments in a very negative tone: “…it was a polemic in his magazine declaring that a small cabal of neoconservatives with ties to the administration are willing to ‘conscript American blood to make the world safe for Israel’.” In her view, Buchanan’s statements are self-evidently false, and they should be utterly rejected by every intelligent American
The war is in fact to a very large extent about Israel interests, as before the war began, former Supreme Allied NATO Commander, General Wesley Clark, admitted as much to a respected British news source. He acknowledged that President George W. Bush’s war plans serve, first and foremost, Jewish-Zionist interests. Being privy to the thoughts and beliefs of those in the highest levels of government, his comments carry authoritative weight: “Those who favor this attack now tell you candidly, and privately, that it is probably true that Saddam Hussein is no threat to the United States. But they are afraid at some point he might decide if he had a nuclear weapon to use it against Israel.”4
Furthermore, after the war was in progress, the American general in charge of American forces in Iraq, General Tommy Franks, revealed that the protection of Israel was a major reason as to why the US went to war. In the words of a Jewish Telegraphic Agency press release: “The threat of a missile attack on Israel was one reason justifying a pre-emptive strike against Iraq, Gen. Tommy Franks said.” 5
Borger continues. “Never mind that if it were up to the Israelis, the United States would be looking toward regime change in Iran or Syria.” In other words, the invasion of Iraq is not about Israel’s interests, because the Israelis would want the US to take action against Iran or Syria.
The Israelis were, and are, in fact pushing for US action against Iran. For example, in the June 25, 2003 issue of the pro-Zionist and highly influential Wall Street Journal, former prime minister of Israel Shimon Peres insisted that the US, Europe, Russia and the U.N. should take serious action against the Iranian nation.6 The Jewish-Zionist ADL, which is a de facto agent of Israel, is now pushing for the world to act against Iran.7
Borger continues. “And never mind that this cabal is actually a bunch of predictable hawks who also urged action in Kosovo and Bosnia on behalf of Muslims. Forget all that.”
Here, I believe, is a formal statement of her argument. “These (largely Jewish) neoconservatives pushed for military action in Kosovo and Bosnia aggressive military actions that in no way serve Israel’s interests. Therefore, it is not fair to say that they pushed for military action against Iraq for Israel’s interests.”
This is highly misleading, if not patently false. The Jewish political scientist, Benjamin Freedman, revealed a major facet of the neoconservative agenda. He pointed out how in recent times Jews have played a decisive role in conservative Republicanism and neo-conservatism. Ginsberg reveals what lies behind the conservative mask: “A number of Jews ascertained for themselves that Israeli security required a strong American commitment to internationalism and defense. Among the most prominent Jewish spokesman for this position was Norman Podhoretz, editor of Commentary Magazine. Podhoretz had been a liberal and a strong opponent of the Vietnam War. But by the early 1970s he came to realize that continued American support for Israel depended upon continued American involvement in international affairs – from which it followed that American withdrawal into [isolationism] represented a direct threat to the security of Israel. This was one major reason that Podhoretz broke with liberals…”
Thus, one of the main contentions of neo-conservatism is that a highly interventionist US foreign policy in areas other than the Middle East will safeguard the interests of Israel. If the US pursues an overall interventionist foreign policy it will be more likely to intervene on Israel’s behalf if the Zionist nation needs it.
This evidence directly undermines Borger’s claim. Just because the hawkish neocons advocated military action in Kosovo and Bosnia “military actions that do not overtly serve Israel’s interests in no way disproves the theory that their advocacy of the US invasion of Iraq was for Israel’s welfare. Their overall aggressive, interventionist agenda in areas other than the Middle East is ultimately tied to the welfare of Israel.
In her ongoing attempt to discredit the theory that the Zionist lobby drove the US into the Iraq war, she asks this rhetorical question: “Still, doesn’t Bush’s long-standing preference for Sharon have more to do with his disgust with Yasser Arafat than his deep affection for Richard Perle?”
Bush’s dislike of Yasser Arafat may have played a role in driving him into the neoconservative camp, but monetary contributions from Jewish Republicans undoubtedly also played a role in driving him into the pro-Iraq war, pro-Zionist camp. As Jewish scholars S.M. Lipset and E. Raab note, one quarter of Republican Party contributions come from Jewish sources.9
Furthermore, Bush’s main advisors and top men are members of the ardently pro-Zionist, pro-Israel Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA). Undoubtedly this also played a significant role in prodding Bush to accept Richard Perle’s Zionist agenda for Iraq.
The distinguished British journalist, Robert Fisk, pointed out in the respected British news source, The Independent, that: “Only The Nation among all of America’s newspapers and magazines has dared to point out that a large number of former Israeli lobbyists are now working within the American administration, and the Bush plans for the Middle East–which could cause a massive political upheaval in the Arab world–fit perfectly into Israel’s own dreams for the region. The magazine listed Vice-President Dick Cheney–the arch-hawk in the US administration–and John Bolton, now undersecretary of state for Arms Control, with Douglas Feith, the third most senior executive at the Pentagon, as members of the advisory board of the pro-Israeli Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (Jinsa) before joining the Bush government. Richard Perle, chairman of the Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board, is still an adviser on the institute, as is the former CIA director James Woolsey.”
Fisk continues: “Michael Ledeen, described by The Nation as one of the most influential ‘Jinsans’ in Washington, has been calling for ‘total war’ against ‘terror’–with ‘regime change’ for Syria, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and the Palestinian Authority. Mr. Perle advises the Defense Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld–who refers to the West Bank and Gaza as ‘the so-called occupied territories’…”
Continuing with this line of thought, Fisk adds: “Jinsa’s website says it exists to ‘inform the American defense and foreign affairs community about the important role Israel can and does play in bolstering democratic interests in the Mediterranean and Middle East’. Next month, Michael Rubin of the right-wing and pro-Israeli American Enterprise Institute–who referred to the outgoing UN human rights commissioner Mary Robinson as an abettor of ‘terrorism’–joins the US Defense Department as an Iran-Iraq “expert.”
Fisk then reveals the Jewish director of Jinsa: “According to The Nation, Irving Moskovitz, the California bingo magnate who has funded settlements in the Israeli-occupied territories, is a donor as well as director of Jinsa.”
Finally, Fisk points out that President Bush will not reveal to the American public the influence Jinsa has on his foreign policy: “President Bush, of course, will not be talking about the influence of these pro-Israeli lobbyists when he presents his vision of the Middle East at the United Nations…”10
In her further attempt to disprove the hypothesis that Bush and his pro-Zionist colleagues lied the American public into the Iraq war, she proclaims: “Let’s face it: Bush is no conniving conspirator. If anything, he’s a deeply unsubtle man who forms visceral and stubborn assessments of leaders” and Saddam Hussein and Kim Jong II are at the top of his bad-guys list.
Contrary to what she writes, new evidence suggests that Bush is indeed a conniving conspirator that attempted to lie us into the Iraq war. According to a recent AFP press report: “US military intelligence warned the Bush administration in February 2002 that its key source on Al-Qaeda’s relationship with Iraq had provided ‘intentionally misleading data,’ according to a declassified report.”
The article continues: “Nevertheless, eight months later, President George W. Bush went public with charges that the Iraqi government of Saddam Hussein had trained members of Osama bin Laden’s terror network in manufacturing deadly poisons and gases.”
Commenting upon this sad state of affairs, Democrat Carl Levin was forced by the evidence to state the obvious: “This newly declassified information provides additional dramatic evidence that the administrations pre-war statements were deceptive.” 11
Furthermore, Kim Jong II’s North Korea, a dangerous enemy of the US, has publicly admitted that they have nuclear weapons.12 Yet, Bush did not order an invasion of North Korea. But Bush did order an invasion of Hussein’s Iraq, “a nation that did not have nuclear weapons that could threaten the US. The one country that Hussein’s Iraq did pose a threat to was Israel,” further evidence that Bush’s pro-war Iraq policy serves the interests of Israel.
Once again, in an attempt to discredit the hypothesis that the Zionist lobby prodded the US into the Iraq war, Borger claims, with a rhetorical question, that the president’s advisors were not fooled by Zionist functionaries to go to war with Iraq. “Were the president’s top advisers hoodwinked?,” Borger asks.
The president’s top advisers were not “hoodwinked” or “bamboozled” into driving the US into the Iraq war. As we showed previously, these advisers are all men with an ardently pro-Zionist, pro-Israeli outlook, and they are members of the ardently pro-Zionist JINSA. These Bush advisers are actively involved with pro-Zionist interests.13
Borger goes on to quote Saddam’s Deputy Prime Minister, Tariq Aziz: “The reason for this warmongering policy toward Iraq is oil and Israel.”
Aziz has it perfectly correct. One of the main reasons for the war was oil for Israel. From another respected Internet news source, we read: “[The] minister for national infrastructures [of Israel] Joseph Paritzky was considering the possibility of reopening the long-defunct oil pipeline from Mosul to the Mediterranean port of Haifa. With Israel lacking energy resources of its own and depending on highly expensive oil from Russia, reopening the pipeline would transform its economy.”
The article continues: “It is understood from diplomatic sources that the Bush administration has said it will not support lifting UN sanctions on Iraq unless Saddam’s successors agree to supply Israel with oil.” The authors add this most cogent observation: “All of this lends weight to the theory that Bush’s war is part of a master plan to reshape the Middle East to serve Israel’s interests. Haaretz quoted Paritzky as saying that the pipeline project is economically justifiable because it would dramatically reduce Israel’s energy bill.”14
Borger then lists what she claims is the real reason why the US went to war with Iraq: “So when a White House aide suggests that this president believes that confronting tyranny is in our interest and coincides with our values, we say there must be more to it. If confronting tyranny is truly the reason as to why Bush wants war, then we should expect that he would have threatened Israel just as ardently that he threatened Iraq. For decades, Israel has exercised tyrannical oppression over the Palestinian people, but Bush has not declared war on Israel. He is allied with Israel.”
If confronting tyranny was a reason as to why Bush goes to war, then we should expect that he would have invaded North Korea, an oppressive Stalinist entity and enemy of the US that does have weapons of mass destruction.15 But Bush never ordered an invasion of North Korea. Of course, North Korea does not directly threaten Israel. Bush chose to invade a nation that did not have any weapons of mass destruction that threaten the US. Saddam’s Iraq posed a threat to Israel. All of this is further evidence that a primary motive to invade Iraq was for Zionist-Israeli interests.
Finally, Borger reveals to her readers “the truth.” Jewish-Zionist forces are not in any way to blame for driving the US into the Iraq war: “Here is what is true: Jewish Americans hold no monolithic view about a possible war with Iraq. One survey conducted by the American Jewish Committee shows that 59 percent of Jews approve of a possible war while 36 percent disapprove, numbers that mirror the public at large.”
Here is what she is arguing. While a majority of Jews were in favor of the war, slightly more than a third of Jews opposed the war. So you cannot blame all Jews for driving the US into the Iraq war. Furthermore, since the relative percentage of Jews who favored the war were similar to the relative percentages of non-Jews who favored going to war with Iraq, you cannot blame the Jewish Community for driving the US into the Iraq war.
Since the Jewish Community in general wields a disproportionate share of the power and influence in the US, it is not fair to compare the percentages of Jews who favored the war with the percentages of non-Jews who favored the war, show they are similar, and then conclude that the Jewish-Zionist lobby played no major role in driving the US into the Iraq war. Since the Jewish-Zionist Community has a disproportionate share of political power and influence in the US, their wishes, activities and agenda often play a more significant role than that of the public at large. So, by the mere fact that a majority in the Jewish Community favored the war is highly significant in a political sense because they have a disproportionate share of the political power in the United States.
In all fairness, it must be emphasized that all American Jews were not and are not in favor of this war, and the entire American Jewish community is not responsible for driving the US into the Iraq war. And furthermore, there are a number of Jews who are ardently opposed to this war and they openly condemn Bush’s pro-war policies. But the fact of the matter remains is that certain powerful groups of Jews with strong Zionist sympathies in collusion with powerful pro-Zionist non-Jews did in fact drive the US into the Iraq war because it served Zionist-Israeli interests.
Borger then goes on to admit that, yes, these Jewish neoconservative hawks did write memos in the late 1990s calling for the overthrow of Saddam’s regime. But these memos, she claims, should not be looked upon as George Bush’s reason and master plan for invading Iraq. According to Borger, they have no significance whatsoever, because George Bush has told the American people that the reason he invaded Iraq was to bring to an end the tyrannical regime of Saddam Hussein for the welfare of the world. To believe otherwise, Borger continues, “is to believe that George Bush is a liar.” According to Borger’s view, Bush is honest and he told the American people the truth as to his real reasons for invading Iraq.
As stated previously, we now have evidence that George Bush’s pre-war statements were knowingly deceptive, and that he may very well have lied the American people into the Iraq war.16
Borger then goes on to quote one of the spokesmen and luminaries of the Jewish-Zionist Community, Elie Wiesel, as to the “real” reason why the US invaded Iraq. The great Holocaust guru argues that appeasing Saddam Hussein would not have led to peace. To the contrary, in order to spare the world further horror and oppression, the US had to destroy Saddam’s regime. In order to bolster his argument, the great moral beacon then invokes the Hitler analogy: “Had Europe’s great powers intervened against Adolf Hitler’s aggressive ambitions in 1938 instead of appeasing him in Munich, humanity would have been spared the unprecedented horrors of World War II.”
As the political psychologist Kevin MacDonald has noted in his work, this is an age-old Jewish tactic clothing sectarian Jewish interests in universalistic moral rhetoric in order to make it more appealing to the non-Jewish world.17 If Wiesel were truly interested in ridding the world of dictatorial oppression, he would be calling for sanctions against his fellow Jews in Israel for their oppression of Palestinians just as he called for war against Hussein’s Iraq.
Gloria Borger’s article shows how pro-Zionist functionaries in the US media mislead and bamboozle their readership in order to protect Jewish-Zionist interests.
1. Gloria Borger, “Blaming the Cabal,” US News and World Report, 24 March 2003. Online: http://www.usnews.com/usnews/opinion/articles/030324/24pol.htm