Taking Issue With Mearsheimer

Over the last couple days I’ve taken some shots at Professor John Mearsheimer with regard to views that he expressed on a recent show with Danny Davis. Mearsheimer literally wrote the book on The Israel Lobby—groundbreaking and courageous work—and deserves a fair amount of slack for that work. However, the other day I thought that he bent way too far over backward in trying to show that he’s not an anti-semite, by repeatedly stating that AIPAC’s activities are “perfectly legal.” I’ve already gone into a lot detail about why that characterization is a ridiculous oversimplification in FBI Executes Search Warrant On Scott Ritter's Home so won’t repeat it here. I will simply add that such a Pollyannish approach to any legal issue that arises in a highly politicized context, with vast amounts of money involved, and the most central branches and departments of government and the Deep State involved under intense pressure will always fail to elucidate.

In this post I’ll take issue with another statement that Mearsheimer made recently:

"There is abundant evidence that Israel is pursuing policies that are directly at odds with the Biden administration’s goals in the Middle East.

"First, the Biden administration desperately wants a ceasefire in Gaza. The Netanyahu government, however, is committed to making sure the negotiations for a ceasefire fail, which they have so far."

To repeat what many others have said, if the Zhou regime were not even ‘desperate’ but simply mildy desirous of obtaining a ceasefire in Gaza, nothing could be simpler. All that would take would be to pick up the phone and tell Netanyahu that the US supply of munitions and military materiel were being cut off until a ceasefire was established. We all know that the result of such a call would a lockstep wig-out of AIPAC and the rest of The Lobby and of the Israeli government, but nothing would be simpler or more effective.

The question, then, is: Why not? Why hasn’t this simple step been taken? Is it because of fear of the political muscle of Zionist inclined American Jews, or … could it be because the Zhou regime is pursuing a strategy with Israel as its spearpoint to instigate a crisis that would establish a second front in the Middle East. A second front to replace the failed first front in Ukraine. In other words, another war to destroy Russia and BRICS by attacking the linchpin of BRICS: Iran.

Consider these three excerpts from Danny Davis’ interview with Ted Postol—an emeritus rocket science prof at MIT and longtime consultant to DoD.

MIT Professor Ted Postol: Iran Missiles, Drones & Israel's Iron Dome

Ask yourselves whether the actions described are the actions of a regime that is “desperate” for any sort of ceasefire, or the actions of a regime that is working hand in hand with Israel to advance a war against Russia and Iran. I use “war” in the general sense of an effort to inflict a strategic setback, not necessarily through direct military force on a grand scale but leveraging military force at sufficient levels to achieve that result. Read these excerpts in the context of the continuing genocide and continuing Israel attempts to elicit a massive military response from Iran:

Postol: What I find very disturbing--I'll speak now not as a citizen of the world but as an American citizen--is, I find it very disturbing that President Biden hasn't just called up Netanyahu and said, 'Look, you get no more materials from us--period. You're starting something that's going to have an an adverse effect for almost everybody in the world and we are not going to be co-belligerents in this.' But the United States is a co-belligerent as long as we keep providing weapons to the Israelis under conditions like this. It's really no different than starting a war directly, at least in terms of supporting this conduct.

DD: If anybody has any doubts about what the United States is prepared to do now ... here is what former Admiral John Kirby said just a couple of days ago about what we're prepared to do:

"On the April 13th, when Iran launched 300 missiles and drones, the United States had aircraft fighter planes in the air to knock them down. We've now added additional naval and air assets to the region to help defend Israel again. I think we proven time and time again that we're going to support Israel."

Yeah, and I just got to ask, Why do we need to prove anything, much less 'time and time again,' if it's against our own National interest? That's the really bizarre part.

Right. Which raises the possibility that our current bellicosity in support of Israeli attempts to instigate a major war with Iran may just be because the Zhou regime, daftly IMO, believes that a war with Iran at this point, while Russia is still occupied with Iran, may just be in the Anglo-Zionist Empire’s ultimate strategic interest. Of course, that must mean that there’s an enormous amount of gaslighting going on, of misdirection, to make the ever gullible American public believe that we’re only coming to the defense of poor victim Israel, not deliberately trying to set off a huge war with a steady drumbeat of violations of international law. So, with the idea of gaslighting in mind, read this next excerpt. And bear in mind that this has been going on for ten months. Postol gets what’s going on, as witness his parenthetic “or incredibly cynical”.

Postol: You should be more concerned about a larger number of 500 pound bombs than of 1,000 pound bombs. This is one of the reasons why I found it disturbing that Biden said he wasn't send sending 2,000 pound bombs to the Israelis because of what they were doing in Gaza, but he was continuing to send these lower weight bombs. You can do much more damage with a cluster of 500 pound bombs than with a 2,000 pound bomb! The 2,000 pound bomb is very good if you have an extremely hardened military target and you really want to take it out. That's why you want a 2,000 pound bomb. If you want to do general damage, to knock down buildings--which is what was going on in Gaza--500 pound bombs and 1,000 pound bombs are more than enough. So it was incredibly ignorant--or incredibly cynical--to suggest to people that they were somehow limiting the capacity to kill people in Gaza by limiting 2,000 pound bombs. I was beside myself when he brought that up as a an indication of trying to impose constraint on the Israelis. And this is the real problem. The problem is the United States will impose no constraints on this government, this Israeli government, in spite of the fact it's hellbent on murdering as many people as it possibly can.

OK, two more items—and tell me if, taken in total context, this doesn’t suggest US/Israeli coordination with a strategic object in view

Israel Attacks Airbase In Central Syria Known To House Russian Troops

Following late night explosions being reported in the central Syrian region of Homs, state media SANA has subsequently confirmed that an Israeli airstrike has wounded at least four soldiers and caused "material losses" at the Shayrat Airbase.

The Israeli attack came from the direction of northern Lebanon. It has become common for Israeli jets to use undefended Lebanese airspace from which to attack targets inside Syria. Images showing a series of large explosions have circulated on social media.

Shayrat Airbase has long been well-known also as a base of Russian troop operations over several years.

Please. Is this going to be a rerun of the now familiar, ‘Oh, the Israelis never told us they were gonna do this!” Right. If you believe that, well, fit this one into your world view:

US Hints At Regime Change In Tehran If Israel Is Attacked

The US is preparing to play Air Force for Israel's skies as it deploys a dozen F-22 stealth raptor jets to the Middle East region. This change in 'force posture' was not debated in Congress (nor is it even really being debated on the mainstream networks), despite that clearly US service members could soon find themselves in the middle of a war between Iran and Israel.

The White House has issued a fresh warning to Tehran on Thursday as it is said to still be gearing up for a strike on Israel in retaliation for the July 31st killing of Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh at a residence in Tehran. The new warning from Washington includes both negative economic consequences and threats of destabilizing actions directed against the newly elected government of Masoud Pezeshkian.

"The United States has sent clear messaging to Iran that the risk of a major escalation if they do a significant retaliatory attack against Israel is extremely high," a US admin official told The Wall Street Journal.

The official further said that Tehran has been put on notice over "a serious risk of consequences for Iran’s economy and the stability of its newly elected government if it goes down that path."

Is this a threat of regime change? To the ears of Iranian officials, it will sure sound like it given the country on its eastern border and the country on its western border were both regime-changed by Washington.

Read it all, it’s good. You’d almost think from reading US statements that this was all touched off when Iran carried out an assassination of a visiting dignitary in Jerusalem. Which gaslighting surely leads one to wonder whether we’re seeing the unrolling of A Plan. None of this sounds remotely like a Zhou regime that is “desperate” for a ceasefire or for scaling down of regional warfare.