Le néocon juif Eliot Cohen serait conseiller de Romney pour le Moyen-Orient

Eliot Cohen Returns as Romney’s Man on Iran

By Max Blumenthal

In 2005, a group of graduate students at Johns Hopkins University’s School of Advanced and International Studies (SAIS) participated in the school’s annual diplomatic simulation. The high pressure scenario required the students to negotiate a resolution to a standoff with a nuclear-armed “Republic of Pakistan.”Mara Karlin, a student known for her hawkish politics on Israel and the Middle East, played president of the U.S.A.
Though most of the participants were confident they could head off amilitary conflictwith diplomatic measures,Ms. Karlin jumped the gun. According to a former SAIS student, not only did Ms. Karlin order a nuclear strike on Pakistan, she also took the opportunity to nuke Iran. Her classmates were shocked. It was the first time in 45 years that a simulation concluded with the deployment of a nuke.
That year, Ms. Karlin received a plum job in the Bush administration’s Department of Defense where, according to her bio, she was “intimately involved in formulating U.S. policy on Syria, Jordan, Lebanon and Israel-Palestinian affairs.” Lebanon was a special area of focus for Ms. Karlin. She claims to have helped structure the Lebanese armed forces and coordinated relations between the U.S. and Lebanese militaries.
According to the former SAIS student, Ms. Karlin was a favorite of Eliot Cohen, an ultra-hawkish professor of strategic studies at SAIS, which is regarded in American foreign policy circles as a training ground for the neo-conservative movement.
Today, Cohen is among Republican presidential front-runner Mitt Romney’s top campaign advisers.
He is the primary author of Romney’s foreign policy white paper, which attacks Obama for “currying favor with [America’s] enemies” and “ostentatiously shunning Jerusalem.”
The paper urges a policy of regime change in Iran including possible coordination with Israel on military strikes, allegedly to prevent the Iranian regime from developing a nuclear weapon. It is an aggressive Republican election season document presenting a concoction of post-9-11 unilateralism and unvarnished imperialism as the antidote to a sitting president Cohen accused of “unilateral disarmament in the diplomatic and moral sphere.” More importantly, it suggests that a Romney administration’s foreign policy might look remarkably similar to—and perhaps more extreme than—that of the Bush administration.
Cohen rose through the ranks of the Republican foreign policy elite as a protégé of Paul Wolfowitz, the former assistant secretary of defense who is credited with playing a central role in the push for invading Iraq. Stephen Walt, a professor of international affairs at Harvard University’s School of Government who has been on the receiving end of aggressive attacks by Cohen, called Cohen “a classic neo-conservative.” Walt said: “He is constantly fretting about alleged U.S. vulnerabilities, consistently supportive of increased defense spending and generally inclined to favor U.S. intervention in other countries. Second, like virtually all neo-conservatives, he is also deeply attached to Israel, as well as to the United States.”
Despite Cohen’s deep Israeli ties, he has proved extremely sensitive to critiques of the connection.When Walt and John Mearsheimer, the latter a professor of International Relations at the University of Chicago, published their widely debated paper on the Israeli lobby in 2006,* Cohen authored one of the first attempts to discredit their thesis about a loose coalition of individuals and organizations creating political pressure to move U.S. foreign policy in a pro-Israeli direction. In an op-ed in The Washington Post, Cohen accused the authors of “kooky academic work” and “obsessive and irrationally hostile beliefs about Jews.”
“Cohen’s rather hysterical reaction to our work was both typical and easy to explain,” Walt remarked.
“Given that he and other neo-conservatives had played a key role in convincing George Bush to invade Iraq in 2003, he was understandably upset when we pointed this out and provided extensive documentation of their role in the run-up to this disastrous war.
He could not refute our logic or our evidence, however, so he chose tomisrepresent our views and smear us falsely as anti-Semites and conspiracy theorists.”
With the last battalions of U.S. troops preparing to redeploy from Iraq to other conflict zones, Cohen is homing in on Iran. In a September 2009 editorial for The Wall Street Journal, he dismissed diplomacy and sanctions as feasible means of curbing Iran’s alleged nuclear ambitions.
“The choices are now what they ever were: an American or an Israeli strike, which would probably cause a substantialwar, or living in aworldwith Iranian nuclear weapons, which may also result in war, perhaps nuclear, over a longer period of time,” he wrote.
As tensions between Israel and Iran rise to unprecedented levels, and Israel’s leaders beseech the U.S. to join a military strike, Cohen’s visions of regime change seem closer to realization than ever.
For him and the neo-conservative policy elite, a Romney victory in November might deliver the next “big prize.”
——
* Walt and Mearsheimer’s book The Israel Lobby & U.S. Foreign Policy (hardcover, 484 pages $30 plus $6 S&H;) is available from AFP.Send order to AFP, 645 Pennsylvania Avenue SE, Suite. 100, Washington,D.C. 20003. To order by major credit card, call toll free 1-888-699-NEWS.
——
Max Blumenthal is an independent journalist who maintains the popular news and commentary website maxblumenthal.com.

Warhawk Romney Will Bankrupt U.S.

April 21, 2012   AFP

Warhawk Romney Will Bankrupt U.S.

• Populists concerned about Republican candidate’s rabid internationalism, unabashed love for Israel

By Michael Collins Piper

If Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex.) hopes to mold the Republican Party’s 2012 national campaign platform into a document of nationalism and non-interventionism, he has a tough job ahead, for the global outlook of all-but-certain GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney is firmly  internationalist and interventionist.

In fact, as AFP noted on Oct. 24, 2011, Romney’s first major foreign policy address delivered on Oct. 7 at the Citadel was a declaration of budget-busting, round-the-planet meddling, a promise of unending wars against an array of perceived enemies, ranging from Iran, Russia, China, Pakistan and billions of Muslims across the Earth.

“Endless trillions,” concluded AFP, “will continue to go down the black holes of the military-industrial banking police state.”

A rabid call for U.S. adventurism, Romney’s speech was full of rhetoric that, on its face, had a lot of energetic fervor that appealed to many good American patriots. He declared:.

This century must be an American century. In an American century, America leads the free world and the free world leads the entire world. God did not create this country to be a nation of followers. America is not destined to be one of several equally balanced global powers. America must lead the world, or someone else will. Without American leadership,without clarity of American purpose and resolve, the world becomes a far more dangerous place, and liberty and prosperity would surely be among the first casualties.

However, while the language reflects the views expressed in Romney’s campaign book No Apology: The Case for American Greatness, there’s much more to it than meets the eye. And this is what is important for real patriots to understand:

The concept of an “American century”—a catchphrase of American internationalists of the Council on Foreign Relations school of thought going back to the post-World War II era—has seen its most recent incarnation in the theme of “American greatness”—also known as “American exceptionalism”—bandied about by the ex-Trotskyite hard-line pro-Israel neo-conservatives who orchestrated the United States into the no-win war in Iraq and who now push for a war against Iran.

Romney’s linguistics constitute a modern-day propaganda cover for old-fashioned Trostkyite communism: rapacious imperialism and internationalism wrapped in the American flag, but no different from the age-old dream of a world imperium—a global government—a New World Order.

The specific foreign policy aims expressed by Romney were a virtual wish list for warmongers and profit-driven plutocrats. Although none of Romney’s five sons served in uniform, their father calls for a significant—some say “muscular”—role for the U.S. military abroad. Romney said, in part:

We are at war with Islamic fundamentalism. We must fight against the most ancient of prejudices: anti-Semitism.

In my first 100 days in office, I will . . . announce an initiative to increase the shipbuilding rate from nine ships per year to 15 [ships per year].

I will begin . . . the full deployment of a multi-layered national ballistic missile defense system. I will enhance our deterrent against the Iranian regime by ordering the regular presence of aircraft carrier task forces, one in the Eastern Mediterranean and one in the Persian Gulf region.

I will begin discussions with Israel to increase the level of our military assistance and coordination . . . an Iranian nuclear weapon is unacceptable. I will launch a campaign to advance economic opportunity in Latin America . . . free trade . . . I will reaffirm as a vital national interest Israel’s existence as a Jewish state. I will count as dear our special relationship with the United Kingdom. . . .

Romney’s saber-rattling against Iran, ritually embracing the mantra that Iran is a threat to not only Israel but to the United States, has been supplemented with equally dangerous bombast.

On CNN, Romney actually described modern Russia as America’s “number one geopolitical foe,” charging Russia “lines up with the world’s worst actors,” and that “Russia is not a friendly character on the world stage.”

That these words sound familiar is no surprise, considering those who constitute Romney’s most intimate advisors.

Notable among those whispering in Romney’s ear is Eliot A. Cohen—a longtime and foremost figure in military and geostrategic affairs, one of the most influential of the Zionist neo-conservative internationalists active today. A founding member of the neo-conservative Project for the New American Century—famed for suggesting America needed a “New Pearl Harbor” in order to jump-start U.S. involvement in new global military ventures—Cohen is one of multiple “neo-cons” who populate Romney’s inner circle.

But even more so, Romney prizes, in particular, an unusually close and long-standing personal (and political) alliance—going back 36 years—with no less than Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu.

First openly revealed in candid detail by The New York Times on April 7—to the genuine surprise of many who were confounded by the link between the Michigan-born former Mormon missionary and the cosmopolitan Israeli-born Jew who graduated from high school in suburban Philadelphia—the Times described the relationship as “a warm friendship, little known to outsiders, that is now rich with political intrigue.”

Emphasizing that the Romney-Netanyahu axis is additionally “strengthened by a network of mutual friends and heightened by their conservative ideologies” the Times commented frankly that “the ties between Mr. Romney and Mr. Netanyahu stand out because there is little precedent for two politicians of their stature to have such a history together that predates their entry into government.”

The two met in 1976 while working at the Boston Consulting Group. Remaining in close contact, they regularly advised one another after both went into government on both domestic and foreign policy, having absorbed, the Times said, “the same profoundly analytical view of the world.”

What is disturbing—at least to American nationalists—is that, as the Times noted, “Romney has suggested that he would not make any significant policy decisions about Israel without consulting Mr. Netanyahu.” Even the Times—a staunchly pro-Israel voice—noted that this was “a level of deference that could raise eyebrows given Mr. Netanyahu’s polarizing reputation.”

Michael Collins Piper is an author, journalist, lecturer and radio show host. He has spoken in Russia, Malaysia, Iran, Abu Dhabi, Japan, Canada and the U.S.

Romney blasts Obama on Israel, Iran

Romney Tied to Terrorism GOP presidential hopeful Mitt Romney looked like a deer caught in the headlights when he was asked if he supported an international, anti-American terrorist organization with a bloody record for killing innocent civilians thousands of times worse than al Qaeda. This “expert on international affairs” claimed he never had heard of them. Then, like a lying politician, he promised: “I’ll take a look at the issue.” Video taken at a town hall meeting in New Hampshire shows Romney quickly waving the issue aside and hurrying on to another question.

 Le général Richard Myers et Eliot Cohen.
COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
Cabal of Rabid Warhawks Advising Mitt Romney
The American media is strangely silent about Mitt Romney’s shadow National Security Council, the 50-plus madmen Romney has surrounded himself with as “foreign policy advisers”—many of whom helped push the U.S. into the disastrous war against Iraq. Romney had the chutzpa to name his foreign policy after the Project for a NewAmerican Century, the neo-con dream of a new Pearl Harbor that was fulfilled on 9-11. Several include:

MICHAEL HAYDEN: On CNN (2010), former CIA director and prominent torture advocate, Michael Hayden said attacking Iran over its nuclear program might not be a bad idea. “In my personal thinking . . . I have begun to consider that [nuclear war] may not be the worst of all possible outcomes.”

ELIOT COHEN: Insanely used the 9-11 attacks to advocate war with Iran. Cohen, director of the strategic studies program at Johns Hopkins University, said either we attack Iran, or it gets nukes. “The choices are now what they ever were: an American or an Israeli strike, which would probably cause a substantial war.”

ERIC EDELMAN: Former aide to Vice President Dick Cheney. Earlier this year in an article in the Council on Foreign Relations’s publication Foreign Affairs, Edelman, along with two other co-authors, said that the U.S. will either have to attack Iran or contain its nuclear weapons capability. “The military option should not be dismissed because of the appealing but flawed notion that containment is a relatively easy or low-risk solution to a very difficult problem,” they wrote.

NORM COLEMAN: Former Republican senator from Minnesota. Said that if Israel ever attacks Iran, the United States should join in. Coleman said: “The United States is going to be part of that.”

KIM HOLMES: The Heritage Foundation’s Kim Holmes worried that negotiating with Iran over its nuclear program might be preventing the U.S. from using military force to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. Holmes called peace a “serious mistake.”
Should Mitt Romney become president, get ready for more undeclared war, bigger government and a further expansion of the police state.

http://incogman.net/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/NEOCONS.jpg
Irving Kristol, Norman Podhoretz, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, Lewis « Scooter » Libby
La liste des contributeurs au document du PNAC « Reconstruire les défenses americaines » (« Rebuilding America’s Defenses ») compilé en 2000, qui a appelé à un « nouveau Pearl Harbor »: Roger Barnett, du US Naval War College, Alvin Bernstein, de la National Defense University, Stephen Cambone, de la National Defense University, Eliot Cohen, de la Nitze School of Advanced International Studies de la Johns Hopkins University, Devon Gaffney Cross, du Donors’ Forum of International Affairs, Thomas Donnelly, du Project for the New American Century (PNAC), David Epstein, du Bureau du Secrétaire de la Défense, Net Assessment, David Fautua, Lieutenant Colonel de l’armée américaine, Dan Goure, du Center for Strategic and International Studies, Donald Kagan, de l’Université Yale, Fred Kagan, de l’Académie militaire américaine de West Point, Robert Kagan, du Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Robert Killebrew Colonel américain (à la retraite ), William Kristol du journal The Weekly Standard, Mark Lagon de la Commission sénatoriale des affaires étrangères, James Lasswell de la GAMA Corporation, I. Lewis Libby de Dechert Price & Rhoads, Robert Martinage du Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessment, Phil Meilinger du US Naval War College, Mackubin Owens du US Naval War College, Steve Rosen de l’Université Harvard, Gary Schmitt du PNAC, Abraham Shulsky de RAND Corporation, Michael Vickers du Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessment, Barry Watts Northrop Grumman Corporation, Paul Wolfowitz Nitze School of Advanced International Studies, Johns Hopkins University, et Dov Zakheim de System Planning Corporation, comprend une proportion relativement élevée de noms juifs. Il y a beaucoup plus d’individus associés au PNAC. (…)
http://rackjite.com/graphics/neocons.jpg
John Bolton, Eliot Abrams, Robert Kagan, Michael Ledeen, William Kristol, Frank Gaffney Jr.

Sur ce blog:
Michele Bachmann est comme Sarah Palin: plus sioniste que les sionistes

Rick Santorum, le nouveau candidat sioniste le plus en vue aux États-Unis, représente un grave danger pour la liberté d’expression

Sheldon Adelson: « je suis le juif le plus riche au monde »

Selon Frank J. Gaffney (PNAC), les Frères Musulmans ont infiltré et contrôlent l’administration Obama

‘A CLEAN BREAK’: un document incontournable du gvt israélien pour comprendre le projet du Grand Israël et les agressions impérialistes au Moyen-Orient

La Judée déclare la guerre à Ron Paul

11 septembre et tout le reste: c’était pas les musulmans!

Le mouvement juif Néo-conservateur : du trotskisme au bellicisme sioniste

Les fauteurs de guerres

This entry was posted in Non classé. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.