Iraq War Was about Israel, Bush Insider Suggests (9/11 Commission member Zelikow under attack)

Iraq under Saddam Hussein did not pose a threat to the United States but it did to Israel, which is one reason why Washington invaded the Arab country, according to a speech made by a member of a top-level White House intelligence group.

IPS uncovered the remarks by Philip Zelikow, who is now the executive director of the body set up to investigate the terrorist attacks on the United States in September 2001--the 9/11 commission--in which he suggests a prime motive for the invasion just over one year ago was to eliminate a threat to Israel, a staunch U.S. ally in the Middle East.

Zelikow's casting of the attack on Iraq as one launched to protect Israel appears at odds with the public position of President Bush (news - web sites) and his administration, which has never overtly drawn the link between its war on the regime of former president Hussein and its concern for Israel's security.

The administration has instead insisted it launched the war to liberate the Iraqi people, destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and to protect the United States.

Zelikow made his statements about "the unstated threat" during his tenure on a highly knowledgeable and well-connected body known as the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board (PFIAB), which reports directly to the president.

"Why would Iraq attack America or use nuclear weapons against us? I'll tell you what I think the real threat (is) and actually has been since 1990--it's the threat against Israel," Zelikow told a crowd at the University of Virginia on Sep. 10, 2002, speaking on a panel of foreign policy experts assessing the impact of 9/11 and the future of the war on the al-Qaeda terrorist organisation.

"And this is the threat that dare not speak its name, because the Europeans don't care deeply about that threat, I will tell you frankly. And the American government doesn't want to lean too hard on it rhetorically, because it is not a popular sell," said Zelikow.

The statements are the first to surface from a source closely linked to the Bush administration acknowledging that the war, which has so far cost the lives of nearly 600 U.S. troops and thousands of Iraqis, was motivated by Washington's desire to defend the Jewish state.

The administration, which is surrounded by staunch pro-Israel, neo-conservative hawks, is currently fighting an extensive campaign to ward off accusations that it derailed the "war on terrorism" it launched after 9/11 by taking a detour to Iraq, which appears to have posed no direct threat to the United States.

Israel is Washington's biggest ally in the Middle East, receiving annual direct aid of $3-to-4 billion.

Even though members of the 16-person PFIAB come from outside government, they enjoy the confidence of the president and have access to all information related to foreign intelligence that they need to play their vital advisory role.

Known in intelligence circles as "Piffy-ab," the board is supposed to evaluate the nation's intelligence agencies and probe any mistakes they make.

The unpaid appointees on the board require a security clearance known as "code word" that is higher than top secret.

The national security adviser to former President George H.W. Bush (1989-93) Brent Scowcroft, currently chairs the board in its work overseeing a number of intelligence bodies, including the Central Intelligence Agency (news - web sites) (CIA (news - web sites)), the various military intelligence groups and the Pentagon (news - web sites)'s National Reconnaissance Office.

Neither Scowcroft nor Zelikow returned phone calls or email messages from IPS for this story.

Before his appointment to PFIAB in October 2001, he was part of the current president's transition team in January 2001.

In that capacity, Zelikow drafted a memo for National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice (news - web sites) on reorganising and restructuring the National Security Council (NSC) and prioritising its work.

Richard A. Clarke, who was counter-terrorism coordinator for Bush's predecessor President Bill Clinton (news - web sites) (1993-2001) also worked for Bush senior, and has recently accused the current administration of not heeding his terrorism warnings, said Zelikow was among those he briefed about the urgent threat from al-Qaeda in December 2000.

Rice herself had served in the NSC during the first Bush administration, and subsequently teamed up with Zelikow on a 1995 book about the unification of Germany.

Zelikow had ties with another senior Bush administration official--Robert Zoellick, the current trade representative. The two wrote three books together, including one in 1998 on the United States and the Muslim Middle East.

Aside from his position at the 9/11 commission, Zelikow is now also director of the Miller Centre of Public Affairs and White Burkett Miller Professor of History at the University of Virginia.

His close ties to the administration prompted accusations of a conflict of interest in 2002 from families of victims of the 9/11 attacks, who protested his appointment to the investigative body.

In his university speech, Zelikow, who strongly backed attacking the Iraqi dictator, also explained the threat to Israel by arguing that Baghdad was preparing in 1990-91 to spend huge amounts of "scarce hard currency" to harness "communications against electromagnetic pulse," a side-effect of a nuclear explosion that could sever radio, electronic and electrical communications.

That was "a perfectly absurd expenditure unless you were going to ride out a nuclear exchange--they (Iraqi officials) were not preparing to ride out a nuclear exchange with us. Those were preparations to ride out a nuclear exchange with the Israelis," according to Zelikow.

He also suggested that the danger of biological weapons falling into the hands of the anti-Israeli Islamic Resistance Movement, known by its Arabic acronym Hamas, would threaten Israel rather than the United States, and that those weapons could have been developed to the point where they could deter Washington from attacking Hamas.

"Play out those scenarios," he told his audience, "and I will tell you, people have thought about that, but they are just not talking very much about it."

Don't look at the links between Iraq and al-Qaeda, but then ask yourself the question, 'Gee, is Iraq tied to Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad and the people who are carrying out suicide bombings in Israel'? Easy question to answer; the evidence is abundant.

To date, the possibility of the United States attacking Iraq to protect Israel has been only timidly raised by some intellectuals and writers, with few public acknowledgements from sources close to the administration.

Analysts who reviewed Zelikow's statements said they are concrete evidence of one factor in the rationale for going to war, which has been hushed up.

"Those of us speaking about it sort of routinely referred to the protection of Israel as a component," said Phyllis Bennis of the Washington-based Institute of Policy Studies. "But this is a very good piece of evidence of that."

Others say the administration should be blamed for not making known to the public its true intentions and real motives for invading Iraq.

"They (the administration) made a decision to invade Iraq, and then started to search for a policy to justify it. It was a decision in search of a policy and because of the odd way they went about it, people are trying to read something into it," said Nathan Brown, professor of political science at George Washington University and an expert on the Middle East.

But he downplayed the Israel link. "In terms of securing Israel, it doesn't make sense to me because the Israelis are probably more concerned about Iran than they were about Iraq in terms of the long-term strategic threat," he said.

"Certainly his position would allow him to speak with a little bit more expertise about the thinking of the Bush administration, but it doesn't strike me that he is any more authoritative than Wolfowitz, or Rice or Powell or anybody else. All of them were sort of fishing about for justification for a decision that has already been made," Brown said.

Perle has been a brilliant advocate of the Preemptive strike necessary to protect America from its enemies. This is a necessary change from the "let Inspector Closseau track 'em down" policy of the Abomination.

There's nothing "brilliant" about a policy of preemptive strike, unless you mean that such a policy effectively gives a nation the unfettered ability to do whatever the hell it wants without providing a rational justification for it. I happen to personally like that kind of strategy, but then I learned that I couldn't use it to justify burning down my neighbor's house.

Naturally it shouldn't be necessary to have to explain that your attempt to make it appear that Perle was some sort of nut is ridiculous since the policy of the fedgov was explicitly regime change for the last three years of the Abomination's last term.

Nobody here is making it appear that Perle is some kind of "nut" -- in fact, he's far from it. I just have no delusions about his motivations -- which were pretty much confirmed when it was learned that he was working on behalf of Global Crossing to lobby the U.S. Defense Department to approve the sale of GC's telecommunications infrastructure to Hutchison Whampoa. This company, for what it's worth, is generally recognized as a front for the Red Chinese military.

You certainly posted NOTHING "damning" about Perle. Working for Israel is hardly something one would be "damned" about except to pinheaded Bushbashers desperate to undermine the President.

See my last comment above about Global Crossing -- substitute a name like "Bernard Schwartz" for "Richard Perle," replace the name "Global Crossing" with "Loral Space & Communications Ltd.," and imagine it's 1996 instead of 2004. Are you going to tell me that you still don't get it?

Your definition of preemptive war is false and deceptive having nothing to do with your "example."

OK -- I'll accept that. I want you to: 1) define "preemptive war" for me; and 2) describe what aspect of it is so "brilliant" on the part of Messrs. Perle, Wolfowitz, and Feith.

GC cannot make the Chinese rockets work better nor can it provide ANYTHING of great significance to China.

Bullsh!t. Then why would the company need a waiver from the U.S. Department of Defense in order to sell its fiber-optic technology to China?

Ask yourself an honest question here: Would you be making these excuses for Bernard Schwartz if Loral had been selling fiber-optic technology to Red China in 1996 instead of guidance system technology?

I didn't think so.

Your post indicates little identification with American founding values or its Commander-in-Chief.

Really? Look whose side I'm on . . .

So likewise, a passionate attachment of one Nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite Nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest, in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter, without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite Nation of privileges denied to others, which is apt doubly to injure the Nation making the concessions; by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained; and by exciting jealousy, ill-will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld. And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens, (who devote themselves to the favorite nation,) facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; gilding, with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation.

As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent Patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practise the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the Public Councils! Such an attachment of a small or weak, towards a great and powerful nation, dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter.

Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens,) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake; since history and experience prove, that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of Republican Government. But that jealousy, to be useful, must be impartial; else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defence against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation, and excessive dislike of another, cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots, who may resist the intrigues of the favorite, are liable to become suspected and odious; while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests.

The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is, in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connexion as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop.

. . .

Our detached and distant situation invites and enables us to pursue a different course. If we remain one people, under an efficient government, the period is not far off, when we may defy material injury from external annoyance; when we may take such an attitude as will cause the neutrality, we may at any time resolve upon, to be scrupulously respected; when belligerent nations, under the impossibility of making acquisitions upon us, will not lightly hazard the giving us provocation; when we may choose peace or war, as our interest, guided by justice, shall counsel.

Why forego the advantages of so peculiar a situation? Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor, or caprice?

It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world; so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it; for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements. I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs, that honesty is always the best policy. I repeat it, therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense. But, in my opinion, it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them.

--- from George Washington's "Farewell Address," September 17, 1796

Yes, I was wondering when someone would get around to mentioning looking at the map.

Doing that is all that is necessary to understand not only why the place was chosen, but the why justification for it fairly begs even the most obtuse to "get it".

While a case can be made, politically, for finishing off the drama in Afghanistan first, one is left to wonder how the War on Terror could have any chance of long-term success if al-Qaeda and their bastard brethren were permitted to pull a Viet Cong/Pathet Lao and simply disappear into hospitable neighboring countries.

Strategically, choosing Iraq offered the best fit for an economic war (maximum impact with minimum expense) that allows us to at least try to remake that region into something more civilized, open, and dependable while also removing the cancer of terrorist growth at it's starting point.

Symbolically, removing Saddam and installing a first-ever democratic self-governing government is a master psychological coup by the Bush administration. It's doubtful this is the course a Democratic administation would have sought, at least in this manner. The War on Terror must be fought on several different levels simultaneously for it to succeed, and by doing this, we are causing thought processes to occur in neighboring countries that otherwise wouldn't have happened.

I agree with posters who ackowledge that Isreal can pretty much take care of itself in the face of Arab aggression. But if a fully-armed Saddam had the balls to nuke Isreal, rest assured that Baghdad would have disappeared, as would Damascus, and probably Terhan.

The Democratic policy (if they care to call it that) of the "law enforcement" approach to terrorism has been shown to be a failure, and appears to be the product of small minds who cannot seem to grasp the fact that the nature of war in the 21st century has changed, and that arresting terrorists, whose only aim is the maim and kill, and charging them with vandalism or some such thing not only can't stem the flow of terrorism, it actually encourages its' growth.

Taking the War on Terror to one of it's principle harbormasters made eminent sense not only militarily but geopolitically. For the first time in a long time we are in the driver's seat. The radical left (is that redundant?), in it's effort to besmirch this administration over this issue, oozes hypocrisy, ignorance, duplicity and, yes, treason in the matter.

In a larger sense, the left's "hatred", as it were, of this man and his administration is simply the starting point of an agenda-driven campaign of lying, deceiving, destroying all that stand in it's way of reshaping the world (their own New World Order) in it's own vision. After relatively unimpeded growth for the last 40 or 50 years, it's gotten increasingly bold and impatient, and they obviously think they are in a good position to thrust this stuff down our throats whether we want it or not. Remember - these are the guys who actually believe that their thought processes are better than yours, and they KNOW much better than you what is good for you.

This promises to be the ugliest campaign on record, and we've got to be ready for it. Counter lies with truth. That always works. Always.

CA....

Fiber optic technology is NOT missle guidance systems so stop trying to confuse the issue. Loral and Schwartz became public enemies for BRIBING the Abomination to RETROACTIVELY change the rules allowing Loral to give the technology to China. It had broken the law and then had the law changed to make it legal.

That is NOTHING like Global Crossing's activities. Motorola has probably done much more to assist the Chinese with communication technology than Global Crossing. Not to mention Hughes.

Preemptive war is a war fought against an enemy which is bent upon fighting you and which is funding enemies to fight you and which is training enemies to fight you and which would provide weaponry to fight you. It is a rare phenomenon not likely to be used much. After its application to Iraq our enemies get the picture and will not provoke us with terrorist puppets. Although I can't really claim this was preemptive considering the decade long state of warfare which existed between the UN and Iraq. Essentially it is based upon the recognition that the status of weaponry is now such that we will not wait until hit with another catastrophic attack such as the WTC or OKC before acting nor will we wait until the UN allows us.

Their brilliance comes from the unwavering patriotism shown by those men in pushing a policy which runs counter to the girly man philosophy which dominated the nineties. Our action in Afganistan made it clear that we will not allow a state to harbor these killers under the pretense that the state has nothing to do with their actions. This policy will hold such a state accountable and no longer will the terrorists scurry back to their bases and escape unscathed.

Those days are gone as long as we have courageous and far-sighted thinkers such as Bush, Rice, Rumsfeld, Powell, Wolfowitz, Perle etc who understand the nature of the new war and are not afraid to act for the National security interests of the United States no matter what the DNC or UN think about it.

So you're saying the invasion wouldn't occur if Perle didn't exist?

That's an interesting question. Probably yes -- assuming someone else with connections in the U.S. government had undertaken the 1996 effort with the Netanyahu government in israel.

You're whole argument is based on the assumption that some report related to Jews is the founding and source document of our military involvement with Iraq. Consider whether you have been misled by people with a jew-baiting agenda.

Any way Clinton did try to create the environment to support an invasion. His initiative failed. And he didn't have the gumption of 9/11 to spice up the motivation to finish Gulf War I.

How did Clinton try to "create the environment" to support an invasion? And are you saying that the Bush administration has used 9/11 as an excuse to invade Iraq?

ILA, approaches to France and Russia due to their security council veto, Clinton's ridiculous road trip to campuses with Cohen and Albright to test the waters of public support - it's all there. It didn't start with naming some Israeli. It started in 1990.

As for Bush, kind of. The "excuse" is misleading. There were many "reasons", all of them valid or not, primarily we were already their, protecting Kurd automomy, enforcing sanctions and no-fly zones and such.

There were only three outcomes. We could pull out. Result - Kurdish genocide and loss of respect. We could maintain "containment" ie the food for oil regime, sanctions, suffereing of the Iraqi people with no end in sight. Or we could finish the war. 9/11 focused people and gave the fire in the belly to finish off our responsibility. In short-we were already there. What to do?

Washington's Address is routinely trotted out by those who don't understand its significance. He (actually Hamilton) was warning of the dangers of secession instigated by the republicans love affair with France. THAT was his concern as the Address clearly shows- secession.

Not only that but one cannot understand it unless one places it within its historical context. That context was that our infant nation was not prepared for military adventures in a global European war between empires. It was NOT a call for permanent isolationism as the misunderstanding perpetually claim. Certainly Washington and Hamilton would not have any problem with President Bush's actions in defending freedom.
They would clearly understand the dangers modern technologies pose in the hands of nutball terrorists supported by rogue nations.

There certainly is no "imaginary common interest" between the US and Israel but there is, indeed, a real common interest. We are both on the front lines of a titanic struggle between civilization and Islamic lunacy. And just as certainly it is not Perle etc. who are betraying our national interests but the RATmedia opposed to Bush and his team. Too bad you appear to be joining its attack.

Do think I'm being unrealistic in my expectations that a person serving as an advisor to the U.S. government on military matters that have a major impact on this country ought to refrain from lobbying on behalf of Communist China while functioning as an advisor to the U.S. Department of Defense?

I don't have any problem with your description of a "preemptive war," but surely you must understand the danger of placing trust in this government of ours to do such a thing -- especially when we aren't even willing to hold people responsible for mistakes along the way.

My complaint about this "preemptive war" was that it was clearly (in my mind) a case of what I call "back-filling" -- in which the Bush administration made up its mind to invade Iraq and then went about seeking to justify it using whatever half-@ssed means it could find at its disposal. You can certainly argue with me about that, but as long as these so-called "weapons of mass destruction" are nowhere to be found I think I'm on more solid ground here than you are.

Their brilliance comes from the unwavering patriotism shown by those men in pushing a policy which runs counter to the girly man philosophy which dominated the nineties. Our action in Afganistan made it clear that we will not allow a state to harbor these killers under the pretense that the state has nothing to do with their actions. This policy will hold such a state accountable and no longer will the terrorists scurry back to their bases and escape unscathed.

What you've posted here may seem like a great idea, but there's nothing "brilliant" about it. I imagine a third grader could have developed the same conclusions.

Those days are gone as long as we have courageous and far-sighted thinkers such as Bush, Rice, Rumsfeld, Powell, Wolfowitz, Perle etc who understand the nature of the new war and are not afraid to act for the National security interests of the United States no matter what the DNC or UN think about it.

In one respect, the arrogance of these people is breathtaking. How can they possibly engage in anything remotely "far-sighted" when they can't even assure you or me that they'll even be around to execute this "war" a year from now?

Let's get a few facts clear here:

1. In 1996, Richard Perle and Douglas Feith co-authored a report for the Netanyahu government in which they identified a "regime change" in Iraq as something that was in the best interests of Israel (no mention of the United States).

2. Israel had no intention of doing this on their own. In fact, Israel was thoroughly incapable of doing such a thing.

3. Perle name shows up less than 18 months later as a signatory on that 1998 letter to Bill Clinton, urging the U.S. to take an aggressive stand against Iraq and move toward a "regime change" in Baghdad.

I don't think there has been any "misleading" going on here at all. This chain of events makes it perfectly reasonable to question Richard Perle's motives.

How laughable. Scoop Jackson was not a democRAT in today's mold and his concerns about our defense was quite republican. Jackson was not a looney lefty by any means and no one working for him can be legitimately discredited thereby. And it was 30 yrs ago making it even less relevent to anything.

For that matter, in 1970 Ted Kennedy wasn't a Democrat in today's mold either. If you go back and look at the U.S. Senate in that era, you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone who was a "looney lefty" by today's standards. What's your point?

I care what President Bush thinks of him and if he is OK by George that is good enough for me.

"Put not your trust in princes, nor in the sons of men, in whom there is no help." --- Psalms 146:3

"Trust nobody." --- Alberta's Child, 3/31/04

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.