Send a Tweet
Most Popular Choices
Share on Facebook 3 Share on Twitter Printer Friendly Page More Sharing
Exclusive to OpEdNews:
OpEdNews Op Eds   

Re-Confirmation, That Neo-cons Ignored Israeli Warning Not to Attack Iraq, Back In 2001!

By       (Page 1 of 1 pages)   7 comments
Become a Premium Member Would you like to know how many people have read this article? Or how reputable the author is? Simply sign up for a Advocate premium membership and you'll automatically see this data on every article. Plus a lot more, too.
Author 4526
Follow Me on Twitter     Message Professor Emeritus Peter Bagnolo
Re-Confirmation, That Neo-cons Ignored Israeli Warning Not to Attack Iraq, Back In 2001! We all know that the decision to invade Iraq was made before George W. Bush ever took office, but what many of us may not have known was that once in office and having made its plans somewhat public to a few allies, Israeli officials cautioned the Bush administration not to invade Iraq because such an invasion would destabilize the entire region. Instead, Israel suggested that the United States invade Iran, this from Lawrence Wilkerson, former administration official. Neo-cons Had Made Decision To Attack Iraq Back In 1996! Lawrence Wilkerson was former chief of staff for Secretary of State Colin Powell, up from being a member of the State Department's Policy Planning Staff. In an interview with IPS Wilkerson said that the Israeli reaction to news that the Bushites wanted to attack Iraq was an immediate rejection of such an idea. "The Israelis were telling us Iraq is not the enemy - Iran is the enemy." Wilkerson said that the Israeli reaction to invading Iraq in early 2002, was, "If you are going to destabilize the balance of power, do it against the main enemy." Wilkerson said that Israeli warnings against invading of Iraq were "pervasive." A far ranging, unanimous feeling, and outspoken suggestions were that Invasion of Iraq was not a very good idea, to say the least. This sentiment came from Israeli intelligence reports, Israeli politicians, and friends living in Israel. Wilkerson said that the Israeli's tried to impress upon the Bushites that it was not advocating an immediate invasion of Iran either, but was saying that the United States, should focus on Iran and "...should not be distracted by Iraq and Saddam Hussein." The Israeli advice against using military force against Iraq was apparently triggered by reports reaching Israeli officials in December 2001 that the Bush administration had begun designs for attacking Iraq. In Bob Woodward's Book, Plan of Attack, he revealed that on Dec. 1, 2001, the Central Command chief General Tommy Franks was ordered to create the initial formal briefing for attacking Iraq, by then, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. From that point forward, Rumsfeld and Franks began seriously discussing options for a war against Iraq. Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, upon first hearing of the idea of attacking Iraq, immediately requested a meeting with the President on the subject. Sharon's plan was to attempt to talk Bush out of such a plan. Moreover, for weeks before the Sharon/Bush meeting a variety of Israeli leaders hammered away at the Bushites that Iran should be the target of choice if there must be war, because they were the greater threat to Israel and the entire region. In fact, the day before the Sharon/Bush meeting, the Washington Post published the Israeli message. "Today, everybody is busy with Iraq. Iraq is a problem...But you should understand, if you ask me, today Iran is more dangerous than Iraq," the Washington Post reported that the primary quote came from Israeli Defense Minister Fouad Ben-Eliezer, who was in Washington along with Sharon for that meeting. Sharon Yossi Alpher, a former adviser to Prime Minister Ehud Barak, reported in the Jewish American publication, The Forward in New York City, in January, that Sharon warned Bush not to occupy Iraq. Alpher said in his article in The Forward, that Sharon told Bush, in their February 7th meeting, that Israel wouldn't "push one way or another" concerning the Bush desire to attack and defeat Saddam Hussein. Sharon never really reported the exact words that were exchanged at the meeting and the information allegedly came from a substantial witness. Washington, Alpher, said did not want Israel to publicly support the attack and asked that they refrain from doing so and in that way perhaps the USA would have some support of an invasion of Iraq from at least some of Iraq's Arab neighbours. The only exception, to Sharon's vow of silence on the direction of that meeting came from Ranaan Gissin, an aide to Sharon, on Aug. 16, 2002 when he said; "Any postponement of an attack on Iraq at this stage will serve no purpose. It will only give [Hussein] more of an opportunity to accelerate his programme of weapons of mass destruction." In October 2002, the Israeli's were still unhappy about the Bushites seeming unswerving focus on Iraq. It appeared that that the Bush people were inordinately obsessed with the idea of making Iraq a distant outpost of the USA, a permanent possession like Puerto Rico-a gas pumping American Presence in the Middle East. The Israeli Chief of Military Intelligence and the Defense Forces' Chief of Staff publicly pooh-poohed the Bushites' claim that Saddam Hussein's was seeking WMD's for an attack on either Israel and/or the US. Both men said that Israel was militarily dominant over Iraq since the Gulf War. Maj. Gen. Aharon Farkash, Israeli Chief of Military Intelligence, said in an interview to Israeli television, that Iraq had no missiles that could reach Israel directly and opposed the Bushite claim that Iraq was on the brink of obtaining nuclear weapons. He said army intelligence had concluded that Iraq was at least four or more years from such acquisitions and said that Iran was as much of a nuclear threat as Iraq. In 1996, Richard Perle developed for the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies, a task force report directly aimed at the Likud Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, which established the eventual disaster with which we are now faced. However, the Israeli's were convinced that destroying the Hussein regime would distort the Iran-Iraq standoff, which swayed more in Iran's favor after the 1991 Gulf War. However, since the mid-1990's, Israeli Neo-cons were arguing that the U.S. and Israeli should reduce the power and aggressiveness of Anti-Israeli/U.S., Middle eastern, nations and that attacking Iraq, replacing Saddam with a regime friendly to Israel and then moving against Iran would make the middle-east safe for democracies, an obvious canard or massively stupid mistake. Nevertheless, the Israeli government and the Likud Party - as well as Sharon, were not of the same opinion as Perle. This despite the fact that NEO-CONS and Israeli officials agreed on a variety of other issues, Israeli strategic opinion on the issue of invading Iraq was not favorable. The US Neo-cons were hearing a different sound and it seemed to be emanating from Hell, rather than Heaven. Israel believed that the duo of Iraq and Iran, though not even close to each other politically, together, posed a far greater threat than either one, singly but given a choice they would rather see was more concern with Iran Bushite Neo-cons, however, in their haste to turn back the clock to the era between 1918 and 1929, wanted regime change in Iraq, believing it to be a romp in the park and a quickie picnic lunch. Well what can you expect from simpletons who believe that Jesus is against abortion but favors blowing over one million people to smithereens, killing criminals for stealing comic books and bubble gum, and saving babies from abortion (and I agree with that), but then abandoning them and blocking healthcare for them (and I do not agree with that). Maybe someone ought to check and see if the Bushites, as a group have bought heavily into shares for child funeral companies. .


Rate It | View Ratings

Professor Emeritus Peter Bagnolo Social Media Pages: Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in       Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in       Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in       Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in

Professor Bagnolo has majored in: Cultural Anthropology, Architectural design, painting, creative writing. As a child prodigy, abed with polio for almost two years, he was offered an opportunity to skip three grades at age 8.
Later He was a (more...)
Go To Commenting
The views expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
Follow Me on Twitter     Writers Guidelines
Contact EditorContact Editor
Support OpEdNews

OpEdNews depends upon can't survive without your help.

If you value this article and the work of OpEdNews, please either Donate or Purchase a premium membership.

If you've enjoyed this, sign up for our daily or weekly newsletter to get lots of great progressive content.
Daily Weekly     OpEdNews Newsletter
   (Opens new browser window)

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Ethics In Writing Articles In A Relatively Unsupervised Multi Column News Service Milieu

The Hypocrisy of Monogamy: Divorce and Adultery Versus Polygamy

Was Pat Tillman Killed By Friendly Fire Or Assassinated Because of His Changed Views On The War?

Breaking Story! Marine General Peter W. Pace Resigns as Chairman of Joint Chiefs

Distributive Justice: Barack Obama, Bush and Luke 6: 42


To View Comments or Join the Conversation: