“Naturally the common people don’t want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy.”
„Congress is ‚terrorized‘ by AIPAC… In practice, the lobby groups function as an informal extension of the Israeli government.“
(Question: We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that’s more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?) I think this is a very hard choice, but the price–we think the price is worth it.
Syria challenges Israel on Lebanese soil. An effective approach, and one with which American can sympathize, would be if Israel seized the strategic initiative along its northern borders by engaging Hizballah, Syria, and Iran … including by: … establishing the precedent that Syrian territory is not immune to attacks emanating from Lebanon by Israeli proxy forces. … srael can shape its strategic environment, in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria. This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq — an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right — as a means of foiling Syria’s regional ambitions. … Were the Hashemites to control Iraq, they could use their influence over Najf to help Israel wean the south Lebanese Shia away from Hizballah, Iran, and Syria.
A study group in the pro-Israeli think tank IASPS led by Richard Perle for Benjamin Netanyahu, the then newly elected Prime Minister of Israel: „A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm“ – 1996
The double stalemate of the Afghan conundrum – within and around Afghanistan – makes it impossible for any state or combination of states to impose its will on the others. The stalemate, far from being a hindrance to a settlement, is an important element making one possible. The central stumbling block to a solution is the unwillingness of the states involved to recognize the situation confronting them. It is for this reason that external intervention is crucial. Only the United States has this capability. It, too, cannot unilaterally bring about a conclusion. It can, however, act as a lever.
„Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor.“
„What were the Oslo Accords? The Oslo Accords, which the Knesset signed, I was asked, before the elections: „Will you act according to them?“ and I answered: „yes, subject to mutuality and limiting the retreats.“ „But how do you intend to limit the retreats?“ „I’ll give such interpretation to the Accords that will make it possible for me to stop this galloping to the ’67 [armistice] lines. How did we do it? … No one said what defined military sites. Defined military sites, I said, were security zones. As far as I’m concerned, the Jordan Valley is a defined military site. … Why is that important? Because from that moment on I stopped the Oslo Accords … I know what America is. America is something that can be moved easily. Moved to the right direction. They won’t get in our way.“
Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of September 11th – malicious lies that attempt to shift blame away from the terrorists themselves, away from the guilty.
I want to tell you something, we’ve got no better friends than Canada. They stand with us in this incredibly important crusade to defend freedom, this campaign to do what is right for our children and our grandchildren.
Iraq’s government openly praised the attacks of September the 11th. And al Qaeda terrorists escaped from Afghanistan and are known to be in Iraq. … Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.
There is no question whatsoever that Saddam is seeking and is working and is advancing towards the development of nuclear weapons — no question whatsoever. … Today the United States must destroy the same regime because a nuclear-armed Saddam will place the security of our entire world at risk.
The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy, we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason.
First, just if I might correct a misperception. I don’t think we ever said — at least I know I didn’t say that there was a direct connection between September the 11th and Saddam Hussein.
About ten days after 9/11, I went through the Pentagon and I saw Secretary Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz. I went downstairs just to say hello to some of the people on the Joint Staff who used to work for me, and one of the generals called me in. He said, „Sir, you’ve got to come in and talk to me a second.“ I said, „Well, you’re too busy.“ He said, „No, no.“ He says, „We’ve made the decision we’re going to war with Iraq.“ This was on or about the 20th of September. I said, „We’re going to war with Iraq? Why?“ He said, „I don’t know.“ He said, „I guess they don’t know what else to do.“ So I said, „Well, did they find some information connecting Saddam to al-Qaeda?“ He said, „No, no.“ He says, „There’s nothing new that way. They just made the decision to go to war with Iraq.“ He said, „I guess it’s like we don’t know what to do about terrorists, but we’ve got a good military and we can take down governments.“ And he said, „I guess if the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem has to look like a nail.“ So I came back to see him a few weeks later, and by that time we were bombing in Afghanistan. I said, „Are we still going to war with Iraq?“ And he said, „Oh, it’s worse than that.“ He reached over on his desk. He picked up a piece of paper. And he said, „I just got this down from upstairs“ — meaning the Secretary of Defense’s office — „today.“ And he said, „This is a memo that describes how we’re going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran.“
„We are benefiting from one thing, and that is the attack on the Twin Towers and Pentagon, and the American struggle in Iraq. These events swung American public opinion in our favor.“
We do not like this suggestion because it does not meet our demands, and probably it was not easy for you to think about it, but I really appreciate it.
Jerusalem is not a settlement. It’s our capital.
We were doing a lot of stuff very, very quietly – not to say covert, but very quietly.
President Obama has been so low-key in his pronouncements about events in Egypt and Libya that it’s easy to miss the extent of the shift in U.S. strategy. … Though Obama seemed to be accommodating the region’s authoritarian leaders, in August 2010, he issued Presidential Study Directive 11, asking agencies to prepare for change. This document cited „evidence of growing citizen discontent with the region’s regimes“ and warned that „the region is entering a critical period of transition.“ … „We have a core interest in stability through political and economic change. The status quo is not stable,“ explains Ben Rhodes, a deputy national security adviser.
We came, we saw, he died
As President Bashar al-Assad’s government falters, Syria is becoming Iran’s Achilles’ heel. Iran has poured a vast array of resources into the country. … Iran is intent on assuring its hold over the country regardless of what happens to Mr. Assad — and Israel and the West must prevent this at all costs. … And if Mr. Assad goes, Iranian hegemony over Syria must go with him. Anything less would rob Mr. Assad’s departure of any significance.
Today, the regime in Iran openly calls and determinedly works for our destruction. And it is feverishly working to develop atomic weapons to achieve that goal.
I frankly find that crisis initiation is really tough. And it’s very hard for me to see how the United States President can get us into war with Iran. Which leads me to conclude that if in fact compromise is not coming that the traditional way that America gets into war is what would be best for U.S. interests.
Some people might think that Mr. Roosevelt wanted to get us into World War II, as David mentioned, you may recall we had to wait for Pearl Harbor. Some people think Mr. Wilson wanted to get us into World War I, you may recall we had to wait for the Lusitania episode. Some people might think that Mr. Johnson wanted to send troops to Vietnam, you may recall we had to wait for the Gulf of Tonkin episode. We didn’t go to war with Spain until the USS Maine exploded. And may I point out that Mr. Lincoln did not feel he could call out the Federal Army until Fort Sumter was attacked which is why he ordered the commander of Fort Sumter to do exactly that thing which the South Carolineans had said would cause an attack.
So if in fact the Iranians aren’t going to compromise, it would be best if somebody else started the war. One can combine other means of pressure with sanctions. I mentioned that explosion on August 17th. We could step up the pressure.
I mean look people, Iranian submarines periodically go down, some day one of them might not come up, who would know why? We could do a variety of things if we wish to to increase the pressure. I’m not advocating that, but I’m just suggesting that this is not an either or proposition, you know it’s just sanctions have to succeed or it’s other things.
We are in the games of using covert means against the Iranians. We could get nastier.