You alarm me when I “read into” your words, especially in the last paragraph, that an attack on Iran for oil is almost a done deal. According to James Baker, the big oil boys and girls wouldn’t have much to gain by an attack on Iran.

Is it possible for a real world discussion of U.S. foreign policy in the ME to occur without even mentioning Israeli Zionism as a significant variable?

It’s not about mere oil–it’s about controlling access to that oil. READ THE PNAC STATEMENT. read Nixon and Kissinger in 1973. Read history for christ sake. I’m not denying that Israel and Washington are connected, but it is Washington that is in charge. Your hatred of Zionism blinds you to historical fact. Too bad.

The forked tongue Israel First bastards are everywhere in every shape form and disguise imaginable.

“More recently Ron Jacobs, whose political commentaries appear regularly on left-of-center websites, described MEK as “a humane alternative to both Tehran and Washington” who’s religious “approach is no different than that of liberal Christian and Jewish denominations”

The anti war movement is very much influenced by the “Zionist liberal”, as one of the leftists characterizes individuals such as Chomsky and Zonus, and they try hard to protect Israel from any critics of the Zionist war. These people never use the word “Zionism” in their analysis. Imperialism/Zionism is both sides of the same coin and whoever tries to divert attention away from this reality is going to be isolated. When Chomsky was asked why do the Neocons want to go after Syria if the war is for OIL and nothing to do with the Middle East map and elimination of Israel’s enemies knowing that Syria has done every thing US wanted her to do? He basically agrees that Syria has done every thing that US wanted Syria to do but he goes through the historical events of the past 4o years on a monotonous voice and puts everyone to sleep and then repeats the same thing: because Syria does not follow the order. He agreed ten minutes earlier that this is not the case.
There is no doubt that The Zionists pro Israel have a role in waging the war. To maintain the US hegemony and access or even control the oil certainly occupation was not the best option available to US imperialism since the occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq through massacres and destruction brought so far nothing but hatred of US beyond the middle east and this is not very helpful if the hegemonic US wants to rule. To maintain the status quo US imperialism will continue the use of more violence and more killing which is not helpful to US imperialism but definitely is very desirable to Zionism for many obvious reasons. The goal of Zionists is to divide the middle east into smaller parts so create allies for Israel and continue the status que in Palestine without attracting that much attention on Palestinian occupation and destruction and instead focus on other Islamic countries such as Iraq, Afghanistan, Sudan, ……….. and Iran until their goals are achieved.

http://www.iranian.com/Pourzal/2006/June/MEK/index.html
http://www.counterpunch.org/jacobs04102004.html
http://www.pars-iran.com/en/?mod=view&id=851
http://www.iran-interlink.org/files/News/Ros-Lehtinen.2.30jan03.pdf

Ron, to interject that same strawman in your rejoinder actually confirms the point that I made in my response to your piece. The critics of the “War For Oil” mantra has never stated that Tel Aviv is wagging the U.S. dog. What people like Petras and Brenner are doing is exposing influence groups like AIPAC and there role in helping to advance and encourage U.S. military presence in the Middle East. Among whom neo-con Paul Wolfowitz penned the PNAC policy paper now being implemented by the neo-cons whose ideology is grounded in Zionism.

Unfortunately those who are fearful of any discussion of the role Zionism is playing within U.S. society has accused critics of such commentary as you have done in your piece and rebuttal.

My rebuttal to your piece clearly reject your strawman yet you see fit to repeat that same strawman. Why? Because it serves to diminish the role of racism(Zionism) influence in U.S. policy. What you fail to understand is that there must be an OUTCRY against Zionism (as well as racism) in the United States similar to the OUTCRY against apartheid in South Africa in order to eliminate a major pretext for U.S. militarism in the Middle East.

It is clear that U.S. is imperialistic nation yet HISTORICALLY the Middle East has played a very little role in U.S. imperialism. LATIN AMERICA has been where the U.S. has put most of its imperialistic energies. However since the 1990’s and especially since 2003 the U.S. has spend a great deal of its budget engaged in an illegal invasion in the Middle East where there is no “economic benefit” to the U.S. and whereby U.S. oil companies are on record being against.

Zionism may very well be a racist ideology (it certainly appears to be in practice), but then again what the hell is US imperialism? One of the most racist ideologies in history, that’s what!

So why not an openly acknowledge the role Zionism is playing today in influencing U.S. foreign policy and the role it has played in miring the U.S. in the Middle East as well as U.S. culture?

To focus on Zionism in fact weakens the pretext for U.S. involvement in the Middle East. Many people attempt to justify U.S. imperialism on economic grounds as “the need for the resources”. However your piece, like many who spread the “War For Oil” mantra results in diminishing the role Zionism plays in ADVANCING U.S. imperialism abroad as well as ADVANCING racism WITHING the U.S.

The rhetoric has now been altered to say that the Iraqi invasion is part and parcel with “U.S. Empire” and “U.S. Imperialism” by “leftist” like yourself not to educate the intended reader but to serve as a reactionary shield of U.S. Zionism.

That strawman is that the U.S. MidEast policy is being conducted by Tel Aviv. In other words, that the “tail is wagging the dog”. Such rhetoric is obviously not true and critics of the “War For Oil” mantra has never claimed that U.S. foreign policy is being formulated by Tel Aviv.

What has been stated by scholars like James Petras and critics of Israel such as Jeffrey Blankfort and Lenni Brenner is that MidEast policy is being influenced by Zionism. Groups such as AIPAC wield a great deal of influence among both Democrats and Republican politicians and especially the neo-cons currently in power. The ideology of neoconservativism by the way is grounded in Zionism and their interest are aligned with the advancement of Israeli hegemony.

What folks like Jacobs are doing is minimizing the influence of Zionism to conflate the issue as SOLELY or MAJORITY a desire of the U.S. to control MidEast oil. Once again that belies the fact that there is more oil to control in Latin America whereby the U.S. has not conducted a major invasion and prefer covert actions.

The contradiction Jacobs assertions are easily exposed by James Petras reports that the oil industry was NOT supportive of the invasion of Iraq while the supporters of Israel and neo-cons where greatly in favor of it and expressed their favor of the invasion in the late 1990’s via PNAC written by Paul Wolfowitz.

The real problem is that there are “progressives” who are queasy when the “War for Oil” mantra is challenged because it places Zionism in the U.S. and its influence on U.S. Foreign policy front and center.

These “progressives” are not unlike “whites” who would rather ignore the problem racism in the U.S. And to be frank Zionism is a racist ideology promoting Jewish hegemony. To be unconcerned or dismissive about Zionism in the U.S. is to call into question the credibility of these so-called “progressives”. In reality these “progressives” do not desire to CONFRONT the real issue of racism(Zionism) as it exist in the United States that now carry a huge cost in lives and resources.