The ZPC in Action: The Iraq War

13. Nathan Guttman,

Iraq | Institute for the Study of War

Pressure from Israel and the lobby was not the only factor behind theBush administration's decision to attack Iraq in March 2003, but it wasa critical element. Many Americans believe that this was a "war foroil" (or for corporations like Halliburton), but there is little directevidence to support this claim and considerable evidence that casts doubton it. Other observer blame political advisers such as the Republican strategistKarl Rove and suggest that the war was part of a Machiavellian scheme tokeep the country on a war footing and thus ensure a lengthy period of Republicancontrol. This view has a certain partisan appeal, but it too lacks supportingevidence and cannot explain why so many prominent Democrats supported goingto war. Another interpretation views the war as the first step in a boldeffort to

8.

"Evaluating Iraq: The Legacy of Invasion" by Thomas, …

A few weeks before the United States invaded Iraq, the journalist JoeKlein wrote in Time magazine, "A stronger Israel is very much embeddedin the rationale for war with Iraq. It is a part of the argument thatdare not

{p. 232} speak its name, a fantasy quietly cherished by the neo-conservativefaction in the Bush Administration and by many leaders of the AmericanJewish community."6 Former Senator Ernest Hollings made a similarargument in May 2004. After noting that Iraq was not a direct threat tothe United States, he asked why we invaded that country.7 "The answer,"which he said "everyone knows," is "because we want to secureour friend Israel." A number of Jewish groups promptly labeled Hollingsan anti-Semite, with the ADL calling his comments "reminiscent ofage-old, anti-Semitic canards about a Jewish conspiracy to control andmanipulate government."8 Hollings adamantly rejected the charge, notingthat he had long been a staunch supporter of Israel and that he was simplystating the obvious, not making an untruthful claim. He demanded that hiscritics "apologize to me for talking about anti-Semitism."9


promises to be a watershed in the Iraq war

Sharon's comments notwithstanding, by early 2002, when it was becomingincreasingly apparent that the Bush administration was thinking seriouslyabout another war against Iraq, some Israeli leaders told U.S. officialsthat they thought .ran was a greater threat.19 They were not opposed totopppling Saddam, however, and Israel's leaders, who are rarely reticentwhen it conles to giving their American counterparts advice, never triedto convince

Australian strategy and effectiveness in Iraq War open …

{p. 234} the Bush administration not to go to war against Iraq. Nordid the Israeli government ever try to mobilize its supporters in the UnitedStates to lobby against the invasion. On the contrary, Israeli leaderswere worried only that the United States might lose sight of the Iranianthreat in its pursuit of Saddam. Once they realized that the Bush administrationwas countenancing a bolder scheme, one that called for winning quicklyin Iraq and then dealing with Iran and Syria, they began to push vigorouslyfor an American invasion.

Iraq: Is the war worth the cost? | MinnPost

The Israelis began their efforts ih the spring of 2002, a few monthsbefore the Bush administration launched its own campaign to sell the Iraqwar to the American public. Former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahucame to Washington in mid-April and met with U.S. senators and the editorsof the Washington Post, among others, to warn them that Saddam was developingnuclear weapons that could be delivered against the American homeland insuitcases or satchels.20 A few weeks later, Ra'anan Gissen, Sharon's spokesman,told a Cleveland reporter that "if Saddam Hussein is . not stoppednow, five years from now, six years from now, we will have to deal withan Iraq that is armed with nuclear weapons, with an Traq that has deliverysystems for weapons of mass destruction.''21

The question of whether the war in Iraq is worth its ..

{p. 235} paign for war with a speech to the Veterans of Foreign Warsconvention in Nashville Tennessee, several newspapers and television andradio networks (including Haaretz, the Washington Post, CNN, and CBS News)reported that Israel was urging the United States not to delay an attackon Iraq. Sharon told the Bush administration that postponing the operation"will not create a more convenient environment for action in the future."Putting off an attack, RaÕanan Gissen said, would "only givehim (Saddam) more of an Opportunity to accelerate his program of weaponsof mass destruction." Foreign Minister Peres told CNN that "theproblem today is not if, but when." Postponing an attack would bea grave mistake, he said, because Saddam would be better armed down theroad. Deputy Defense Minister Weizman Shiry offered a similar view, warning,"If the Americans do not do this now, it will be harder to do it inthe future. In a year or two, Saddam Hussein will be further along in developingweapons of mass destruction." Perhaps CBS best captured what was goingon in the headline for its story: "Israel to US: Don't Delay IraqAttack."25