By Maidhc Ó Cathail
The Passionate Attachment
September 25, 2012
Last Friday, during question time at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy policy forum luncheon on “How to Build US-Israeli Coordination on Preventing an Iranian Nuclear Breakout,” the director of research at the pro-Israel think tank hinted that a Pearl Harbor-type attack might be necessary to get the United States to go to war against the Islamic Republic.
“I frankly think that crisis initiation is really tough,” said Patrick Clawson, who also heads the Washington Institute’s Iran Security Initiative, in response to a question about what would happen if negotiations with Tehran fail. “And it’s very hard for me to see how the United States … uh … President can get us to war with Iran.”
As a consequence, Clawson said he was led to conclude that “the traditional way [that] America gets to war is what would be best for US interests.”
Intriguingly, he went on to recount a series of controversial incidents in American history — the attack on Pearl Harbor, the sinking of the Lusitania, the Gulf of Tonkin incident, and the blowing up of the USS Maine — that US presidents “had to wait for” before taking America to war.
“And may I point out that Mr. Lincoln did not feel he could call out the federal army until Fort Sumter was attacked,” Clawson continued, “which is why he ordered the commander at Fort Sumter to do exactly that thing which the South Carolinians had said would cause an attack.”
“So, if in fact the Iranians aren’t going to compromise,” the Israel lobbyist concluded with a smirk on his face, “it would be best if somebody else started the war.”
Note: Clawson begins his answer around the 1 hour 15 minute mark.
Update: It’s worth noting that op-ed in the Jerusalem Post magazine earlier this year raised the possibility of just such an attack. In a piece entitled “The looming war with Iran,” Avi Perry, who served as an intelligence expert for the Israeli government, confidently predicted:
Iran, just like Nazi Germany in the 1940s, will take the initiative and “help” the US president and the American public make up their mind by making the first move, by attacking a US aircraft carrier in the Persian Gulf.
The Iranian attack on an American military vessel will serve as a justification and a pretext for a retaliatory move by the US military against the Iranian regime. The target would not be Iran’s nuclear facilities. The US would retaliate by attacking Iran’s navy, their military installations, missile silos, airfields. The US would target Iran’s ability to retaliate, to close down the Strait of Hormuz. The US would then follow by targeting the regime itself.
Elimination of Iran’s nuclear facilities? Yes. This part would turn out to be the final act, the grand finale. It might have been the major target, had the US initiated the attack. However, under this “Pearl Harbor” scenario, in which Iran had launched a “surprise” attack on the US navy, the US would have the perfect rationalization to finish them off, to put an end to this ugly game.
Unlike the latest attempt at an Iranian revolution, this time the US would not shy away, rather, it would go public, openly calling for the Iranian people to join in with the US in working to overthrow the corrupt Islamic fundamentalist regime. The Iranian people would respond in numbers.
Spring would reemerge, and the Iranian people would join the rest of the Middle East – this time with the direct support of the US.
The greatest irony behind this most significant episode in 2012 is that the Iranian regime would affect their own demise. Attacking the US navy in the open seas is equivalent to carrying out a suicide bombing.
When the Bush-Cheney administration was in power, Dick Cheney tried hard to find an excuse for military attacks on Iran. After all, according to Gen. Wesley Clark, the former Supreme Allied Commander of NATO from 1997 to 2000, Cheney and other hawks had plans for attacking and destroying seven countries in the Middle East and North Africa over five years in order to transform them into U.S. client states, and he wanted to “accomplish” as much as possible before leaving office. Various options were considered. As reported by Seymour Hersh, in late 2007 the Bush-Cheney administration received congressional approval for its request for $400 million to launch major covert operations against Iran, and a presidential finding signed by Bush authorized a secret program for destabilizing Iran by supporting puppet groups purporting to represent the Iranian Arabs living in the oil province of Khuzestan, the Baluchi people, and other separatist “organizations.” Aside from terrorist operations that killed many innocent Iranians, the program failed. Other venues were also tried, ranging from fabrications about Iran’s alleged interference in Iraq to huge shows of force in the Persian Gulf and a campaign of lies and exaggerations.
Another option that was considered was provoking the Iranians to attack the U.S. forces, hence justifying counterattacks by the U.S. Given the long history of the attacks by the U.S. Navy on Iranian ships and offshore oil installations in the Persian Gulf, and the destruction by the U.S. Navy of the Iranian passenger jet in July 1988 that killed 290 people, creating an “incident” in the Persian Gulf to justify the attacks seemed only “natural.” Then, in January 2008 five Iranian patrol boats supposedly made aggressive moves toward three U.S. warships in the Strait of Hormuz. Bush called the incident “provocative” and “dangerous,” and it appeared momentarily that Cheney’s wish had been realized. But less than a week later the Pentagon acknowledged that it could not positively identify the Iranian boats as the source of the threatening radio transmission that the press had initially reported coming from the boats. In fact, it had come from a prankster.
Hersh also revealed that in 2008 some administration officials met in Cheney’s office to discuss ways to provoke a war with Iran. As Hersh explained, “There was a dozen ideas proffered about how to trigger a war. The one that interested me the most was why don’t we build — we in our shipyard — build four or five boats that look like Iranian PT [patrol] boats. Put Navy SEALs on them with a lot of arms. And next time one of our boats goes to the Strait of Hormuz, start a shoot-up ….It was rejected because you can’t have Americans killing Americans.” But, the War Party learned a lesson: To gain public support for attacking Iran, create the “right” incident.
Four years later, the idea is surfacing again, with the War Party and the Israel lobby calling for an “Iran Pearl Harbor.” Although under Yukiya Amano, the politicized International Atomic Energy Agency has been highly critical of Iran, it still reports consistently that it has found no evidence that Iran has diverted its enriched uranium to a non-peaceful purpose and, in fact, Iran has recently diverted it topeacefulpurposes — fabricating fuel rods for the Tehran Research Reactor that produces medical isotopes for 850,000 Iranian patients annually. Senior Obama administration officials have also emphasized over the past several months that Iran is not making nuclear weapons and has not even made the political decision to move forward toward building them. Over the past several years there have been several analyses arguing that the U.S. can live with an Iran armed with nuclear weapons, and that such an Iran will even be a stabilizing factor in the Middle East.
Thus, the War Party’s hope for “justification” for war with Iran based on its nuclear program has been quashed, at least for now. It has therefore revived the idea of creating the “right incident” for provoking a war with Iran and gaining the public’s support for it too.
One leading advocate of this has been Patrick Clawson, deputy director of research at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP), the research arm of AIPAC. Although his recent suggestion for provoking a war with Iran (see below) attracted wide attention, he has been virulently anti-Iran for at least a decade, and he has never shied away from promoting attacks or provocative acts against Iran. In a conference on Iran’s nuclear program in November 2004 at the Woodrow Wilson International Center in Washington, Clawson declared,
Look, if we could find a way in which we could introduce computer viruses which caused the complete shutdown of the Bushehr system before it became operational, that would be delightful.
If we could find ways in which these very complicated centrifuges, which are spinning at such high speeds, could develop stability problems and fly apart, and the cascade [of the centrifuges] could be destroyed, I think that would be delightful.
And, indeed, if we could find a way to create an industrial accident of the scale of the Three Mile Island which did not cause a single fatality, which would prevent Bushehr from becoming operational, I think that would also be very helpful.
If we could find ways to bring about industrial accidents, that offer good prospects of not endangering human life, but may unfortunately cause some collateral damage, then that’s a plan that we have to consider.
Note the outrageous claim that the Three Mile Island nuclear accident did not cause any fatality, a claim that, as I pointed out then, had already been totally discredited. A recent study indicated that an attack on four of Iran’s nuclear sites would kill up to 85,000 Iranians. But Clawson is oblivious to such facts.
Several months ago in a debate on al-Jazeera TV regarding the assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists, Clawson supported targeted assassination — a “polite” name for state-sponsored terrorism — which both Israel and the U.S. have been using, calling it “a valid instrument of war” and declaring,
If we were going to say that everyone that is involved in targeted assassination is responsible as a terrorist, then Mr. Obama would quickly be thrown in jail, because the United States has killed over 1000 people with its targeted assassination program with its drones, targeted assassinations that have included American citizens. So, the idea that targeted assassination is an instrument of war is something that the U.S. has well accepted. So, the idea that Israel might use targeted assassination as an instrument of war — we may not like it, we may disapprove of it, we may think that it is a bad idea for Israel to do that — but it is a valid instrument of war.
Clawson did not explain why, if his claim is true, the War Party constantly moans about Iran committing terrorism, calls for “holding Iran accountable,” and refers to Iran as the “leading sponsor of terror.” Terrorism is a valid instrument of war only for one side?
Then Avi Perry, a former Israeli intelligence officer, opined that a “Pearl Harbor-style Iranian attack” on an American warship in the Persian Gulf would provide the pretext for the U.S. to launch all-out warfare against Iran. He did not explain why Iran would want to stage such an attack, expecting a fierce counterattack by the U.S. Perry was implicitly suggesting staging such an attack on behalf of Iranians, the way Cheney wanted it.
Clawson got Perry’s message. In September in a WINEP policy forum luncheon on “How to Build U.S.-Israeli Coordination on Preventing an Iranian Nuclear Breakout,” Clawson lamented, “I frankly think that crisis initiation [with Iran] is really tough,” and that, “It’s very hard for me to see how the United States — [the] president can get us to war with Iran.” After reciting a number of historical incidents that U.S. was able to use to justify going to war, such as the Pearl Harbor attack and the Gulf of Tonkin incident, Clawson said, “So, if in fact the Iranians aren’t going to compromise, it would be best if somebody else started the war [for them],” and, “Look people, Iranian submarines periodically go down. Then, one day one of them might not come up. Who would know why? We could do a variety of things [to provoke Iranians], if we wish to increase the pressure,” and, “We are in the game of using covert means against the Iranians, we could get nastier at that.” In effect, Clawson, who should be forced to register as a lobbyist for Israel, is calling for fabricating a reason to attack Iran.
The War Party and its Israeli allies will do what they can to provoke a war with Iran over its nonexistent nuclear weapons program. Only public vigilance can prevent them from taking us to such an unjustified and criminal war.
• Dr. Patrick Clawson admits ‘false-flag’ operations have become the American way
By Mark Anderson
A recent speech by a prominent think-tankwarmonger strongly suggests the restlessforeign policy community disdains peacewith Iran and is angling for a “false-flag” event to provoke a war with a nationthat has done nothing to theUnited States.
On the Internet, policy expertDr. Patrick Clawson casts asidethe dry narrative that characterizestypical meetings of major foreign policy “advisory” organizations.As if to throw cold water onhis stuffy listeners at a meeting of the stridentlypro-Israel Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP), Clawson openly argues for false-flag tacticsto spark a war with Iran—which fits neatly into the “clash of civilizations” world crusade that mostwell-connected policy planners endlessly promote.
“We can do a variety of things if we wish to increase the pressure. I’m not advocating that,” Clawson said—not “advocating” but still “suggesting” an illegal false-flag strategy, while speaking in a hurried, almost hyper tone. “But I’m just suggesting that this is not an either-or proposition—that . . . sanctions have to succeed or other things [have to succeed]. We are in the game of using covert means against the Iranians. We could get nastier at that.”
While also saying, “I frankly think that crisis-initiation is really tough”—note the words “crisis initiation”—Clawson added, “and it’s very hard for me to see how the U.S. president can get us to war with Iran—which leads me to conclude that if in fact compromise is not coming, then the traditional way America gets to war is what would be best for U.S. interests.” That “traditional way,” he said in a barely cryptic manner, is on the basis of terrible “incidents” that catapult a reluctant nation into all-out war.
“Some people might think that Mr. Roosevelt wanted to get us into World War II . . . and you may recall we had to wait for Pearl Harbor,” Clawson said. “Some people might think Woodrow Wilson wanted to get us into WWI, [and] you might recall he had to wait for the Lusitania episode. Some people might think Mr. [Lyndon] Johnson wanted to send troops to Vietnam; you may recall he had to wait for the Gulf of Tonkin episode.”
Clawson added: “We didn’t go to war with Spain until the Maine exploded.” He even suggested the alleged Southern attack on Fort Sumter to spark the Civil War was engineered by the North and blamed on the Confederates.
Especially notable was his comment: “So if in fact the Iranians aren’t going to compromise, it would be best if somebody else started the war . . . . [W]e could step up the pressure. I mean, look, people, Iranian submarines periodically go down. Someday one of them might not come up. Who would know why?”
And this comes as a presidential election nears which, by the time some read this, could have put a GOP warmonger in the White House, while the corporate media continue alleging Iran is hell bent to build “the bomb” and that Iran can only “negotiate” by ending its nuclear energy program altogether, even if it’s for peaceful purposes. Anything less than that, most U.S. pundits intone, is belligerence deserving of a U.S. and Israeli military strike. That was the exact framework of CNN’s intermittent analysis during the last debate between President Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, when foreign policy was the main topic.
Especially notable was that Clawson spoke of these past events as if it’s self-evident that they were all false-flag, or trumped up, catastrophes to intentionally bring about American involvement in war. Largely gone was the conventional pretense—pushed for countless decades in schools, colleges and the media—that such events were more or less randomized acts of violence carried out only by the culprits named in mainstream history books.
The real, little-known history of intrigue, deception and conspiracy—where, for example, a nation like the U.S. provoked Japan into attacking Pearl Harbor and helped ensure the tragic, deadly event had maximum impact—including the needless murder of 2,459 men, women and children, as well as the loss of two battleships and 169 aircraft.
Clawson’s background suggests his words carry tragic weight. He directs the Iran Security Initiative. Moreover, he is “widely consulted as an analyst and media commentator [and] . . . is the author or editor of 18 books or studies on Iran,” WINEP’s website notes. “He has also testified before congressional committees more than 20 times and has served as an expert witness in more than 30 federal cases against Iran. Prior to joining [WINEP] he was a senior research professor at the National Defense University’s Institute for National Strategic Studies, a senior economist at the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, and a research scholar at the Foreign Policy Research Institute.”
Mark Anderson is AFP’s roving editor. Listen to Mark’s weekly radio show and email him at firstname.lastname@example.org.
Many who have now seen creepy event video clips featuring Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP) Research Director Patrick Clawson listing “crisis initiation” pretexts such as the Gulf of Tonkin phantom torpedo attacks, or false blame for the sinking of the USS Maine, felt it was a subtle call for false flag attacks that would drag a reluctant United States into war with Iran. The full video of the think tank’s event is well worth watching. Dennis Ross struggles mightily to answer reporter Barbara Slavin’s simple question into how WINEP will move beyond diplomatic “red lines” against Iran when polls reveal the majority of Americans have now grown tired of costly elective wars in the Middle East. At one point former American Israel Public Affairs Committee lobbyist Steven J. Rosen’s seemingly disembodied head eerily floats across the screen.
Those seeking background information about WINEP on its official website are informed that WINEP was founded in 1985 by a small group of visionary Americans committed to advancing U. S. interests in the Middle East. Like much of the website’s content, this information isn’t actually true. WINEP was actually incorporated during an espionage investigation crisis that enveloped AIPAC in 1984. The spin-off is eerily reminiscent of AIPAC’s own crisis-driven formation two decades earlier as the Senate struck back against the same types of false flag incitement now emanating from WINEP.
Between 1982 and 1985 English/Australian immigrant to America Martin Indyk busily served as deputy research director at AIPAC. Under Indyk’s reign, AIPAC pumped out a steady flow of lobbying booklets arguing for ever greater U.S. military support to Israel such as “The Strategic Value of Israel” (1982), “Israel and the U.S. Air Force” (1983), “Israel and the U.S. Navy” (1983), “Israeli Medical Support for U.S. Armed Forces” (1983) and “U.S. Procurement of Israeli Defense Goods and Services” (1984). Securing duty-free Israeli access to the entire U.S. economy was the AIPAC research division’s most important project in 1984. But trade negotiations were going badly at the beginning of 1984. Undercutting the arguments of today’s pundits who opine that U.S. industry is the eager driver of ever more dangerously entangling economic and military ties, the majority of U.S. companies providing formal inputdidn’t want any special trade preferences granted to Israel, an economy then dominated by state-run industries. Monsanto even suggested that if the U.S was even going to bother with trade negotiations to boost volumes through comparative advantage, it should do so with a worthwhile economic partner such as Taiwan, Hong Kong or Japan.
Help soon arrived in the form of Israeli Minister of Economics Dan Halpern. Halpern provided AIPAC a stolen copy (PDF) of a secret International Trade Commission report outlining the precise objections supported by arguments using internal industry and secret market data provided in confidence to the US government by American companies opposed to Israeli concessions. It was an indispensible resource for AIPAC’s counter-lobbying and public relations. Unfortunately, by August 3, 1984 theWashington Post broke the news that the FBI was investigating how AIPAC “obtained a copy of a classified document that spells out the American negotiating strategy in trade talks with Israel…” By November 1, 1984 the U.S. Bromine Alliance was in urgent talks with the International Trade Commission Chairwoman, publicly demanding to know how much of their industry’s secret trade and market data had been leaked to AIPAC and Israel’s state-run producer. Perhaps ominously for Indyk and other staffers, an August 13, 1984 FBI report stated “files contain an unsubstantiated allegation that a member of the Israeli Intelligence Service was a staff member of AIPAC…”
The very same month – on November 14, 1984 – the Washington Institute for Near East Policy was incorporated in Washington D.C. (PDF) WINEP was formed not by “prominent individuals” but Martin Indyk’s wife Jill along with Marilyn Edeson and Elizabeth Chotin according to original articles of incorporation obtained from the D.C. Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs. As the FBI’s espionage and theft-of-government-policy dragnet tightened around AIPAC during the “Year of the Spy” spurred by revelations of Jonathan Pollard’s espionage bonanza against the Defense Intelligence Agency, Martin Indyk jumped the burning AIPAC ship and quietly regrouped research production within WINEP. By 1986 WINEP was doing public relations work for the disastrous Lavi jet fighter program while providing a Washington perch for a visiting Shimon Peres to chastise Soviet immigration policy. Thwarted by Israeli diplomatic immunity claims, the FBI quietly shut down its investigation in 1987 after learning much about AIPAC and Israeli officials’ various roles in duplicating and handling classified economic documents – all to the detriment of democratic process in the US.
Although WINEP’s founding myth is that its “scholars” simply wanted to do serious research independent of AIPAC (while funded by AIPAC’s major donors), history indicates that survivability is a more compelling reason for its quiet launch in November of 1984. In a worse-case scenario, espionage or theft of government property indictments would have likely destroyed either AIPAC or WINEP – but not both. Splitting up was the same survivalist strategy that led to the spinoff of AIPAC just six weeks after its parent organization, the American Zionist Council, was ordered to register as an Israeli foreign agent in 1962 – which brings this latest Israel lobbying and covert action saga full-circle.
AIPAC’s parent was ordered to register as a foreign agent (destroying it, though it took a few years) as a result of a Senate Foreign Relations Committee investigation into the activities of foreign agents in the U.S. and abroad. The key reason given for the investigation was the Senate’s fear of foreign agents calling out for Israeli false flag attacks to goad the U.S. into action against the broader national interest. According to a declassified 1961 memo chartering the Senate investigation “In recent years there has been an increasing number of incidents involving attempts by foreign governments, or their agents, to influence the conduct of American foreign policy by techniques outside normal diplomatic channels…..there have been occasions when representatives of other governments have been privately accused of engaging in covert activities within the United States and elsewhere, for the purpose of influencing United States Policy (the Lavon Affair).” The “Lavon Affair”, mentioned twice in the memo, refers to Israel’s “Operation Susannah” terror attacks on U.S. targets – not to goad America into attacking Iran – but to keep a U.S. presence in a neutral Suez Canal zone. No other country is mentioned as a false flag “crisis initiator” in the declassified memo.
WINEP’s sordid history and current calls for “crisis initiation” means it is once again time for Americans to be extra vigilant and ready for action against the movements and machinations of Israel’s most deceptive and dangerous foreign agent duo.
Cette crise n’est pas la première à survenir entre Israël et son puissant allié, mais la tactique de Nétanyahou consistant à passer par-dessus le président américain en misant sur sa non-réélection, ou en en appelant directement au Congrès ou à l’opinion américaine, est vue comme contre-productive par beaucoup de responsables israéliens. Le chef du parti centriste Kadima, Shaul Mofaz, a critiqué le premier ministre pour son ingérence dans les affaires intérieures américaines, lui demandant s’il cherchait à remplacer Obama plutôt qu’Ahmadinejad.
L’UANI (« United Against Nuclear Iran ») est un paravent pour une clique interventionniste israëlo-américainne. Les co-fondateurs de l’UANI: Richard Holbrooke et Dennis Ross. Le PDG actuel: Mark Wallace. Le président: Kristen Silverberg. Pas très perse comme noms… encore de la propagande. La guerre approche.
Says Obama was right to avoid fighting Iran
Sept 15, 2012 Lewistown Sentinel
To the editor:
God bless President Barack Obama for standing up against Israel and the Jewish lobby and refusing to engage the United States in a foolish and unnecessary war against Iran. Americans are tired of fighting Israel’s wars.
New York money is not only playing a big part in 2008 presidential campaign politics, but it’s also a driving force behind the ongoing push by pro-Israel fanatics at the highest levels of U.S. policy-making to force the United States into a senseless war against Iran.
That’s the only conclusion that can be reached based on a survey of multiple and wide-ranging news reports—circulating largely within publications in Israel and in the American Jewish community—that have not been brought to the attention of most Americans through the aegis of the so-called « mainstream media. »
It’s almost as if the major media in America is simply determined to prevent average Americans from knowing that there are some people who believe that Israel and its well-heeled backers in the United States are the primary advocates for U.S. military action against Iran.
Perhaps the most explosive comments in this regard came from Gen. Wesley Clark (ret.), who was a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2004 and who—until then, at least—was considered a likely candidate for the Democratic nod in 2008. In an interview with columnist Arianna Huffington, Clark said that he believed that the Bush administration is determined to wage war against Iran. When asked why he believed this, Clark said:
You just have to read what’s in the Israeli press. The Jewish community is divided but there is so much pressure being channeled from the New York money people to the office seekers.
In short, Clark was saying that powerful New York-based financial interests (those whom he called « the New York money people ») are putting pressure on political candidates and incumbent politicians to support a war against Iran.
In fact, Clark was correct. Jewish community newspapers have indeed noted, time and again over the past several years, that many in the American Jewish community and in Israel are urging U.S. military action against Iran. And in Israel, of course, the bellicose talk of Israel itself attacking Iran is commonly and publicly discussed with free abandon. All of this is little known to the American public.
Despite this, Clark came under fire and was accused of « anti- Semitism » or otherwise charged with lending credence to what are dismissed as « anti-Israel and anti- Jewish conspiracy theories, » which—Clark’s angry critics said—suggest that Israel and its supporters are prime movers behind the drive for war.
Because Clark is the son of a Jewish father (although he didn’t know that until several years ago, having been raised by a Christian mother and a Christian step-father who never told Clark of his Jewish heritage), some Jewish leaders were pulling their punches, recognizing that it sounded somewhat outlandish to call Clark « anti-Jewish. » But the word is definitely out in the Jewish community: « Clark can’t be trusted. »
On Jan. 12,2007, the New York-based Jewish newspaper, Forward, carried a front-page story zinging Clark for his remarks, noting that, »The phrase New York money people’ struck unpleasant chords with many pro- Israel activists. They interpreted it as referring to the Jewish community, which is known for its significant financial donations to political candidates. »
The fact that Jewish leaders and publications were attacking Clark for using the term « New York money people » was ironic, inasmuch as just the week before the furor over Clark’s comments, the same Forward, in its own Jan. 5, 2007 issue, had a front-page story announcing that pro-Israel stalwart U.S. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) had lined up significant financial support for his own 2008 presidential campaign from those whom—in its own headline—Forward called « New York money men. »
In that revealing article, describing McCain’s « heavily Jewish finance committee, » Forward announced that, in recent weeks, « McCain has been signaling that an attention to Jewish issues will remain on his agenda as his campaign moves forward. » The Jewish newspaper did not mention whether McCain will direct any attention to Christian, Muslim, Buddhist or Hindu issues—or any other issues of concern to other religious groups.
The article in Forward made it clear that support from these « New York money men » is critical in the forthcoming presidential campaign and that it could be pivotal, whether that money stays in McCain’s camp or ultimately goes elsewhere.
This information could prove a surprise to grass-roots Republicans all over America who think (apparently incorrectly) that they are the ones who actually pick their party’s presidential nominee.
In addition, in light of the fact that Jewish groups attacked Clark for suggesting that « New York money people » were pressuring political candidates to push for war against Iran, it is interesting to note that Forward pointed out that one of the key « New York money men » supporting McCain cited the issue of Iran as one of the reasons why he was boosting the Arizona senator.
Dr. Ben Chouake, who is president of the pro-Israel NORPAC, a political action committee, and a member of McCain’s finance committee, was cited as having remarked that Iran is « an immense threat to the United States, and this is an immense threat to Israel, » and that « the person that is the most capable, most experienced, most courageous to defend our country, would be John McCain. »
Clearly, the « New York money people » are playing a major part in the American political arena, throwing their weight behind who gets elected— and who doesn’t—and whether or not America goes to war.
That’s something that Americans need to know about, but they had better not count on the mass media to tell them about it.