« The US reaps what it has sown in the ME | Main | "Global blivet" de Borchgrave »

30 August 2012


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

The beaver


Franklin Lamb writes for AlManar and that's where it was published 3 days ago:

It's been re-published on different sites and blogs since then and hence the journal. He didn't link the document and he must have been given a copy for what we know.

He seems to be going after the pro-israel inside the beltway and those in the newspapers.

ex-PFC Chuck

Perhaps this is a disguised piece from "The Onion."


I will be honest: this Beltway Byzantine would be fascinating if the stakes weren't so high and our domestic situation weren't so dire.

The fact that the two are entwined makes it even more dangerous to look away.


I saw that and wondered if it was authentic. My guess was it wasn't but you never know....there could be such a study..but the contents or conclusions could be misrepresented. If it's is not authenitc my question is who makes up these rumors and why.



I hope you are not talking about de Borchgrave. He is a really fine guy. pl


Politics aside, it seems to be a pretty obvious objective fact that American interests are and have been consistently undermined by ignoring Arab/Muslim perspectives...since after WWI.


Lamb is a regular on Press TV; usually reporting from Beirut - draw your own conclusions on what part. I agree with his positions on Israel and Palestine but, as such, wouldn't place much faith in the authenticity of this report. Not that Lamb's a liar, just a dreamer.


I agree this is an improbability for a mainstream IC analytical product. If true, this is more likely something from the CIA's Red Cell or other type of "Outside the box" thinking product.


This interesting reaction to the paper from Israel. Note the admission about Chas Freeman in the first paragraph, by this self-admitted "powerful blogger'.
Friday, August 31, 2012
Obama's 'intelligence' agencies urge preparing for a 'post-Israel Middle East'
Remember Chas Freeman (pictured), President Obama's original choice for Director of National Intelligence? Chas didn't get the position because 'powerful bloggers' like yours truly worked hard to expose his indifference to the torture and murder of Chinese dissidents and his being deep in the pockets of the Saudi royal family.

Instead, Obama appointed James Clapper, who told Congress that China is the United States' biggest mortal threat, and that the Muslim Brotherhood is secular and will save us from al-Qaeda.

So Clapper is now the Director of National Intelligence and Freeman remains influential. Therefore, it's not surprising that President Obama's 'intelligence agencies' have prepared a report on a 'post-Israel Middle East' (Hat Tip: MFS - The Other News). (By the way, the author of this piece is VERY anti-Israel).


Each point in the report can be refuted. But that's not the key here. The key is that this report represents the Obama administration's thinking. Four more years of this - God forbid - could be disastrous for Israel. And most American Jews are more concerned about unrestricted abortions.


I went back to the link at Foreign Policy Journal and saw this, which I don't think was there before and was not at the version linked to in the beaver's comment:

"[Editor's Note: While this report does not mention the source for the information concerning the alleged draft report, FPJ with permission from the author is able to disclose that the source is a staffer with a certain research unit of the CIA.]"

I'd say what Franklin Lamb says comes from the report seems to be remarkably similar to what he says.

While I would agree with many of the conclusions, there seems to be a lot that is not analysis but political advocacy. Do CIA reports say things like this?

"• Israel’s segregationist occupation infrastructure evidenced by legalized discrimination and increasingly separate and unequal justice systems must no longer be directly or indirectly funded by the US taxpayers or ignored by the US government;"


16 intel agencies? Sounds like the NIE.

And how is this any different than what Mullen and Petraeus told the White House two years ago? Mark Perry wrote about it in Foreign Policy: "The Petraeus briefing: Biden’s embarrassment is not the whole story."
The 33-slide, 45-minute PowerPoint briefing stunned Mullen. The briefers reported that there was a growing perception among Arab leaders that the U.S. was incapable of standing up to Israel, that CENTCOM's mostly Arab constituency was losing faith in American promises, that Israeli intransigence on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was jeopardizing U.S. standing in the region, and that Mitchell himself was (as a senior Pentagon officer later bluntly described it) "too old, too slow ... and too late." The January Mullen briefing was unprecedented. . . . [It] hit the White House like a bombshell. . . . the JCS Chairman actually carried a blunt, and tough, message on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict: that Israel had  to see its conflict with the Palestinians "in a larger, regional, context" -- as having a direct impact on America's status in the region. Certainly, it was thought, Israel would get the message. Israel didn't.
Paul Woodward wrote some follow-up in "Israel is putting American lives at risk."
http://warincontext.org/2010/03/14/israel-is-putting-american-lives-at-risk/ The shift, as expressed by Joe Biden last week and by the Petraeus briefing in January is that Israel is now being seen as a liability: the Jewish state is putting American lives at risk. “This is starting to get dangerous for us,” Biden reportedly told Netanyahu.


And more, just out an hour ago at TIME:
Exclusive: U.S. Scales-Back Military Exercise with Israel, Affecting Potential Iran Strike
A smaller U.S. contingent may make it more difficult for the Israeli government to launch a pre-emptive strike on Tehran's nuclear program.

By KARL VICK AND AARON J. KLEIN | August 31, 2012

Seven months ago, Israel and the United States postponed a massive joint military exercise that was originally set to go forward just as concerns were brimming that Israel would launch a strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities. The exercise was rescheduled for late October, and appears likely to go forward on the cusp of the U.S. presidential election. But it won’t be nearly the same exercise. Well-placed sources in both countries have told TIME that Washington has greatly reduced the scale of U.S. participation, slashing by more than two-thirds the number of American troops going to Israel and reducing both the number and potency of missile interception systems at the core of the joint exercise.

“Basically what the Americans are saying is, ‘We don’t trust you,’” a senior Israeli military official tells TIME.

The reductions are striking. Instead of the approximately 5,000 U.S. troops originally trumpeted for Austere Challenge 12, as the annual exercise is called, the Pentagon will send only 1,500 service members, and perhaps as few as 1,200. Patriot anti-missile systems will arrive in Israel as planned, but the crews to operate them will not. Instead of two Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense warships being dispatched to Israeli waters, the new plan is to send one, though even the remaining vessel is listed as a “maybe,” according to officials in both militaries.

The beaver

Don't know whether you've seen this one:

Two key moments are: (a ) talks between Netanyahu and U.S. President Barack Obama at the United Nations General Assembly meeting in late September (no formal invitation to such a meeting has been issued, and the prime minister will probably not initiate such a meeting on his own ); and (b ) a joint U.S.-Israeli military exercise scheduled for mid-October. Logic says that in light of the firm American objection to an attack, Israel will try to avoid taking steps that will embarrass the administration more than is necessary.

and then this one :

They are peeved "after Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs Martin Dempsey said that he did not want to be "complicit" if Israel chose to strike Iran's nuclear program, positing that a premature attack would dissolve the international pressure on the Islamic Republic."


When I tried to click through to the linked site (foreignpolicyjournal.com/blablabla), the net filter my company uses blocked the site and produced only a nasty warning about "malicious" URLs.

So, was the Net Filter written by pro-Israeli moles?

Or is the "Foreign Policy Journal" a front for attracting the attention of potential (political) enemies of Israel, with a website which infects the computers of those who view the article?

Once again, my propeller on my tin-foil beanie is twirling madly...



No, I meant the situation in general in DC. I apologize for the confusion.


I like the idea. Our close relation to Israel is a nuisance to any diplomatic progress in the Middle East. I am also sick and tired of having our sovereignty undermined by their powerful lobby. Our buddy Israel is the greatest intelligence threat in the Middle East.

Remember the USS Liberty.

Dipalma Maclean

Is it really true? I don't think Israel would be the greatest threat to US. I mean Israel wouldn't do that. I just hope this is just a joke.

Dorgan Bristow

I feel that this report is true. The threat really for America is Israel. May we succeed our triumph to achieve WORLD PEACE!

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

January 2020

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
      1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31  
Blog powered by Typepad