The overriding goal of US policy in the Mideast for more than fifty years has been and continues to be control of Mideast energy resources -- not the support of Israel. (It's because Mearsheimer and Walt ignore the former point that they get the latter wrong.) Of course the US doesn't need Mideast oil for domestic purposes -- only about 10% comes from there, and that's a fairly recent development.
Control of Mideast energy -- what the State Department called in WWII "a stupendous source of strategic power and the greatest material prize in world history" -- provides what Zbigniew Brzezinski recently called "indirect but politically critical leverage on the European and Asian economies that are also dependent on energy exports from the region."
It may happen, and soon, that a new alliance with Iran, like that which existed for a generation, will serve this constant American interest.
It's been suggested that if the new Netanyahu government in Israel shows itself recalcitrant in following orders, the USG may move towards a rapprochement with Iran (which will soon have a new government too). A friendly Iran will (a) add its own energy resources to those influenced/controlled by the US; (b) aid in the administration of a pacified, Shia-governed Iraq; (c) supply logistic, diplomatic, and even military aid in the geopolitical control of Afghanistan and hence Pakistan; (d) solidify the alliance with India via the Iran–Pakistan–India gas pipeline ("Peace pipeline"); and (e) prevent the incorporation of the region into the Asian energy and defense grid promoted by the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. It will also dampen the much-trumpeted concern about Iranian nuclear power (which the US supported under the Shah).
Obama has 'balanced' the Freeman appointment with the long-delayed elevation of the awful pro-Israel hack Dennis Ross to (a strangely ill-defined) position regarding Iran. These actions seem to argue a debate within the foreign policy establishment as to how to proceed -- including the possibility that US stances toward both Israel and Iran could alter in pursuit of its settled policy. --CGE
Doug Henwood wrote:
> <http://www.richardsilverstein.com/tikun_olam/2009/02/22/obama-picks-israel-critic-for-senior-intelligence-post/>
>
> OBAMA PICKS ISRAEL CRITIC FOR SENIOR INTELLIGENCE POST Feb 22nd, 2009 by
> Richard Silverstein
>
> Oh, the Israel lobby is up in arms over this one! Former U.S. ambassador to
> Saudi Arabia, Chas W. Freeman, will be appointed to head the National
> Intelligence Council. The Council prepares national intelligence estimates
> for the president, and in the Bush administration this became a pivotal and
> highly charged job. Thus, it is no accident that Obama has chosen an honest
> broker to tell him where in the world the most dangerous challenges are to
> U.S. interests. Dare we hope that several Israeli settler pro-terror groups
> might be added to the State Department list in the coming year?
>
> JTA provides the "damning" evidence of Freeman's heresy:
>
> In 2005 remarks to the National Council on U.S.-Arab Relations, Freeman said
> that "as long as the United States continues unconditionally to provide the
> subsidies and political protection that make the Israeli occupation and the
> high-handed and self-defeating policies it engenders possible, there is
> little, if any, reason to hope that anything resembling the former peace
> process can be resurrected. Israeli occupation and settlement of Arab lands
> is inherently violent.
>
> And as long as such Israeli violence against Palestinians continues, it is
> utterly unrealistic to expect that Palestinians will stand down from violent
> resistance and retaliation against Israelis. Mr. Sharon is far from a stupid
> man; he understands this. So, when he sets the complete absence of
> Palestinian violence as a precondition for implementing the road map or any
> other negotiating process, he is deliberately setting a precondition he knows
> can never be met."
>
> In 2008, in a speech to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Security
> Studies Program, he said, "We have reflexively supported the efforts of a
> series of right-wing Israeli governments to undo the Oslo accords and to
> pacify the Palestinians rather than make peace with them.
>
> "The so-called 'two-state solution' is widely seen in the region as too late
> and too little. Too late, because so much land has been colonized by Israel
> that there is not enough left for a viable Palestinian state alongside
> Israel; too little, because what is on offer looks to Palestinians more like
> an Indian reservation than a country."
>
> Imagine a senior U.S. intelligence officials using the term "colonization"
> and "Indian reservation" in relation to the Occupation. It's shocking. This
> is the Israel lobby's worst nightmare–that an honest broker will actually
> have a senior position in the administration and be able to impact U.S.
> policy, even in an indirect way, toward Israel.
>
> And lest the lobby and Israel's supporters attempt to paint any misleading
> picture of what this means, we need to remember that Aipac's boy, Dennis
> Ross, is about to be appointed U.S. special envoy regarding Iran. Obama has
> not sold his soul to the Arabs or anything like that. He's merely attempting
> to do what previous U.S. presidents should do–keep a level playing field.
>
> Israel is not used to this. It's used to getting its way when it comes to
> U.S. presidents and U.S. policy. It's used to having virtual veto power over
> personnel appointments it sees as potentially threatening to its interests.
> But it didn't get its way on this one. And this won't be the last time.
>
>
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk