Anti-Obits: Response to the Death of Robert Conquest

Grover Furr | Montclair University

Dateline: August 5, 2015

[dropcap]R[/dropcap]obert Conquest, next to Leon Trotsky arguably the chief anticommunist and anti-Stalin propagandist of the 20th century, has died. Naturally, the capitalist media are fawning over him.

A lot could be said about Conquest. I’ll say a bit at the end.

Here are some facts — I have checked them — concerning Conquest’s most famous book The Great Terror:

Robert Conquest has also been identified as having worked for the IRD from when it was set up until 1956. The Information Research Department (IRD), was a section set up in 1947 (originally called the Communist Information Bureau) whose main task was to combat Communist influence throughout the world by planting stories among politicians, journalists and others in a position to influence public opinion.

“We should realize that no one so honored by the chief mass murderers of world history can ever be telling the truth…”

A 1978 story in the The Guardian alleged that Conquest’s work there was to contribute to the so-called “black history” of the Soviet Union — in other words, fake stories put out as fact and distributed among journalists and others able to influence public opinion. After he had formally left the IRD, Conquest continued to write books suggested by the IRD, with Secret Service support.

His book The Great Terror, a basic anti-communist text on the subject of the power struggle that took place in the Soviet Union in 1937, was in fact a recompilation of text he had written when working for the secret services. The book was finished and published with the help of the IRD. A third of the publication run was bought by the Praeger Press, normally associated with the publication of literature originating from CIA sources.

Conquest’s book was intended for presentation to “useful fools”, such as university professors and people working in the press, radio and TV. Conquest to this day remains, for anti-communist historians, one of the most important sources of material on the Soviet Union.

– http://www.fact-index.com/r/ro/robert_conquest.html

The article from The Guardian in 1978 documents the propaganda activities of the IRD:

David Leigh, “Death of the department that never was.” The Guardian January 27, 1978, p. 13, at

http://www.cambridgeclarion.org/e/fo_deceit_unit_graun_27jan1978.html

[A facsimile of the original article may be downloaded here:

http://www.mariosousa.se/TheGuardianFridayJanuary271978050831_Sida_1.jpg

and

http://www.mariosousa.se/TheGuardianFridayJanuary271978050831_Sida_2.jpg ]

[dropcap]I[/dropcap]n his Ph.D. dissertation (but not in the book that he wrote from it) Arch Getty pointed out:

The dominant tendency [in writing the history of the “purges”] has been automatically to believe anything an emigré asserted while automatically denying the truth of everything from the Stalinist side. If one wanted a balanced picture of Tsar Ivan IV, (“The Terrible”), one would not accept at face value the descriptions of the exiled Prince Kurbsky in Poland, during a period of Russo-Polish war. If one wanted a balanced picture of Mao Tse-Tung’s regime in China, one would not accept Chiang Kai-Shek’s version in the early 1950’s as essentially reliable. If one were not interested in such a view, one would. The apparent monstrosity of Stalin’s crimes and a generation of Cold War attitudes have contributed to what would be considered sloppy scholarship in any other area of inquiry.

SIDEBAR
Britain has produced a bountiful harvest of polished disinformers and Cold War propaganda hacks, unprincipled individuals who quickly saw their opportunity for fame and riches in the relatively naive and brutish American anticommunist obsession. In this sordid sphere the suave anglo-American Robert Conquest was, all by himself, a mini-industry, and his contributions to polluting the historical record of the Soviet Union will likely cast a toxic shadow for generations. Or maybe not. Manure has a way of dissolving in the rain, and intellectual manure seldom survives even a drizzle of truth, no matter how augustly served or endorsed.) In any case here’s UK’s Telegraph‘s defense of Robert Conquest, just to show —one more time—how loyal the capitalist barons are to their star propagandists. The page is reproduced in toto so our readers may judge (we reprint the page in full in case The Telegraph site might somehow drop the material later.)—P. Greanville

[learn_more]

When will Russia stop trying to re-write history?

The Russians are ganging up on the historians again because the regime doesn’t want truth to tarnish the legend

Sir John Keegan, left, and Antony Beevor Photo: Martin Pope/Geoff Pugh

By Antony Beevor

[dropcap]T[/dropcap]o hear on the very same day that the great historian Robert Conquest had died and that my books and John Keegan’s were being removed from libraries in Siberia, produced a sinister frisson from the past. The Russian authorities were once again accusing me of repeating Goebbels’s propaganda about the Red Army, stereotyping its soldiers as rapists. It is perhaps worth mentioning that any such criticism is now a crime under Russian law with up to five years imprisonment on conviction.

Ever since my book, Berlin – the Downfall, was published in 2002, senior Russians and the Kremlin-controlled media have fulminated against the passages dealing with the mass rapes committed by Red Army troops during their advance on Berlin. The fact that the information comes principally from Soviet sources is deliberately ignored. The state archives of the Russian Federation have numerous reports on the subject passed to Beria and Stalin, to say nothing of the diaries and accounts by Soviet officers and journalists in other archives. On the other hand, perhaps the files themselves are now being weeded to remove the evidence.

Even though a quarter of a century has passed since the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russian sensibilities have hardly changed. If anything, they are again paranoid about the idea that the world is ganging up against its barely concealed intervention in Ukraine. As the May 9 celebrations of the victory in 1945 over “the Fascist Beast” demonstrate each year, the defeat of Germany is regarded as sacred. Nothing must be allowed to tarnish the legend, which is why the truth about the rapes has proved so uncomfortable.

Russian servicemen march during the Victory Day military parade in the Red Square in Moscow, Russia

The Russia Day parade celebrates victory in 1945 over “the Fascist Beast”. Photo: EPA

But it remains a mystery why the books of the masterly John Keegan, who was long the Telegraph defence editor, have also been targeted. Apart from the panoramic view in his general history of the Second World War, he hardly wrote about the Red Army. I owed John a great deal, having studied under him at Sandhurst and been encouraged by him later. And every one of us acknowledges the importance of the book which made his name, The Face of Battle, a work which led to the revolution in the writing of military history. John believed that historians should not shy away from controversial aspects of the past. But that also means governments should not try to control history, whether in fostering nationalist myths or in attempting to ban discussion.

If there were any logic in this Russian purge, then Robert Conquest’s books would have been the first to be burned. He was a very courageous man. He published his most famous work, The Great Terror, in 1968, producing howls of outrage from the Left and vicious personal attacks. Those Lenin called “the useful idiots” – the fellow-travellers in the Cold War who tried to justify everything the Soviet Union had ever done – treated him as a liar and a fanatical anti-Communist propagandist. But Conquest never lost his nerve, and continued his research and writing, which included The Harvest of Sorrow in 1986, the most detailed account so far of the Ukraine famine unleashed by Stalin.

Robert Conquest’s ‘The Great Terror’ altered our view of the communist experience. Photo: Charles Hopkinson

Nobody can agree on the figures of those who died being worked to death in the Gulag, or who died from famine and disease as a result of forced collectivisation, but when the Russian archives finally opened in 1992, Conquest’s account was triumphantly vindicated. His friend Kingsley Amis suggested that when The Great Terror came out in a new edition he should change the title to: I Told You So You F—ing Fools.

No doubt the Russian authorities removed Conquest’s books on Stalin’s crimes a long time ago, but perhaps they should also look at Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn’s epic poem Prussian Nights, which he translated so well. It included the following lines about the rapes which Solzhenitsyn himself witnessed in East Prussia as a lieutenant of Red Army artillery:

“A moaning, by the walls half muffled:

The mother’s wounded, still alive.

The little daughter’s on the mattress,

Dead. How many have been on it?

A platoon, a company perhaps?

A girl’s been turned into a woman,

A woman turned into a corpse.”

That, I repeat, was Solzhenitsyn, not Goebbels.

[/learn_more]

REGULAR ARTICLE RESUMES HERE

[dropcap]G[/dropcap]etty also pointed out that Conquest specialized in anticommunist propaganda masquerading as scholarship while working for British intelligence.

Sometimes, the “scholarship” had been more than simply careless. Recent investigations of British intelligence activities (following in the wake of U.S. post-Watergate revelations), suggest that Robert Conquest, author of the highly influential Great Terror, accepted payment from British intelligence agencies for consciously falsifying information about the Soviet Union. Consequently, the works of such an individual can hardly be considered valid scholarly works by his peers in the Western academic community.

Conquest’s book was intended for presentation to “useful fools”, such as university professors and people working in the press, radio and TV

Already in 1979 Getty concluded:

The point of view adopted here is that the standard interpretations of the “Great Purges”, such as those by Fainsod and Conquest, are seriously flawed, cannot account for the available evidence, and are thus no longer tenable. (53)

https://msuweb.montclair.edu/~furrg/vv.html

Of course there was no “deliberate famine.” Quite the opposite: Collectivization put an end to famines in Russia / Ukraine. Conquest later retracted his view that Stalin had deliberately caused the famine.

Our view of Stalin and the famine is close to that of Robert Conquest, who would earlier have been con-sidered the champion of the argument that Stalin had intentionally caused the famine and had acted in a genocidal manner. In 2003, Dr Conquest wrote to us explaining that he does not hold the view that ‘Stalin purposely in?icted the 1933 famine. No. What I argue is that with resulting famine imminent, he could have prevented it, but put “Soviet interest” other than feeding the starving first — thus consciously abetting it’.

– R. W. Davies & Stephen G. Wheatcroft. “Debate. Stalin and the Soviet Famine of 1932 — 33: A Reply to Ellman.” Europe-Asia Studies 58 (4) June 2006, 629; also in Davies & Wheatcroft, The Years of Hunger: Soviet Agriculture, 1931 — 1933 (Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan, 2004), 441 n.145.

For all these quotations and more see my book :Grover Furr, Blood Lies. The Evidence that Every Accusation Against Joseph Stalin and the Soviet Union in Timothy Snyder’s Bloodlands Is False. (New York: Red Star Publications, 2014), Chapter 1 “ The ‘Main-Made Famine’ and ‘Deliberate Famine’ Arguments in Bloodlands, Chapter 1.”

After my book Khrushchev Lied was published in Russia I was interviewed by Literaturnaia Rossia, a literary-cultural journal. The interviewer asked me some tough questions, which was fine!

Part of my reply was about Conquest’s book The Great Terror:

As a graduate student from 1965-69 I opposed the US war in Vietnam. At one point somebody told me that the Vietnamese communists could not be the “good guys”, because they were all “Stalinists”, and “Stalin had killed millions of innocent people.”

I remembered this remark. It was probably the reason that in the early 1970s I read the first edition of Robert Conquest’s book The Great Terror when it was published. I was shaken by what I read!

I should add that I could read the Russian language since I had already been studying Russian literature since High School. So I studied Conquest’s book very carefully. Apparently no one else had ever done this!

I discovered Conquest was dishonest in his use of sources. His footnotes did not support his anti-Stalin conclusions! Basically, he used any source that was hostile to Stalin, regardless of whether it was reliable or not.

– “The Sixty-One Untruths of Nikita Khrushchev. “ At https://msuweb.montclair.edu/~furrg/research/litrossiainterv0608_eng.html

Conquest — with the help of the British intelligence service, expert and shameless disinformers –took the lies about the Stalin period concocted under Khrushchev and by him, added more lies from anticommunist sources in the West like Alexander Orlov and Walter Krivitsky, and presented this as “history.”

Conquest’s The Great Terror has lots of footnotes, which are intended to fool the educated but naive reader. But those same footnotes made it possible for me to discover that Conquest used phony evidence and never proved any of his anticommunist, anti-Stalin claims.

Some 25 years later, when Gorbachev took up Khrushchev’s anticommunist and anti-Stalin lies, repeated them, and added more lies of his own, Conquest issued a new edition of The Great Terror and told everybody “I was right.”

He wasn’t “right.” Gorbachev was simply telling the same kinds of lies, and often the very same lies, about the Stalin period that Khrushchev and his people had told.

Conquest got a lot of honors from the mass-murdering imperialists, from Margaret Thatcher to Ronald Reagan and beyond. He earned their praise. He also got a cushy, high-paying post at the Hoover Institution.

Such are the rewards for telling lies on behalf of the anticommunists.

We should realize that no one so honored by the chief mass murderers of world history can ever be telling the truth.

Those of us who want to struggle for the better, communist world need to learn from the successes, as well as from the mistakes, of the Stalin-era Soviet Union and the worldwide communist movement of the 20th century, so we can imitate what they did right while avoiding what they did wrong. So, let’s redouble our commitment to doing just that.

CODA:

“Conquest later retracted his view that Stalin had deliberately caused the famine…”

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Grover Carr Furr III is an American professor and author of books and articles in Russian and English on Soviet history under the period of Joseph Stalin, particularly relating to the Great Purges and the “Secret Speech.”

FACT TO REMEMBER:
IF THE WESTERN MEDIA HAD ITS PRIORITIES IN ORDER AND ACTUALLY INFORMED, EDUCATED AND UPLIFTED THE MASSES INSTEAD OF SHILLING FOR A GLOBAL EMPIRE OF ENDLESS WARS, OUTRAGEOUS ECONOMIC INEQUALITY, AND DEEPENING DEVASTATION OF NATURE AND THE ANIMAL WORLD, HORRORS LIKE THESE WOULD HAVE BEEN ELIMINATED MANY YEARS, PERHAPS DECADES AGO. EVERY SINGLE DAY SOCIAL BACKWARDNESS COLLECTS ITS OWN INNUMERABLE VICTIMS.

[printfriendly]

REBLOGGERS NEEDED. APPLY HERE!

Get back at the lying, criminal mainstream media and its masters by reposting the truth about world events. If you like what you read on The Greanville Post help us extend its circulation by reposting this or any other article on a Facebook page or group page you belong to. Send a mail to Margo Stiles, letting her know what pages or sites you intend to cover. We MUST rely on each other to get the word out!

And remember: All captions and pullquotes are furnished by the editors, NOT the author(s).

What is $5 a month to support one of the greatest publications on the Left?

Jon Stewart: Flogging the system with wet noodles

PATRICE GREANVILLE

The canonization of Jon Stewart proves he’s really no threat to the masters of the universe he pretends to skewer.

jon-stewart-the-daily-show

[dropcap]J[/dropcap]on Stewart is retiring! The long announced departure of this comic is hitting some preternaturally shallow types as if Krakatoa had just blown up again, this time taking a big chunk of Asia, or even something close to a personal tragedy. Starbucks may have to hang crepe for a day or so longer to suitably honor the massive mourning.

As insensitive oafs, forgive us for not joining the procession. In fact, we’ll do the exact opposite: we’ll celebrate Stewart’s retirement by reposting a classic, the hard to surpass analysis by Steve Almond of what Jon Stewart and his protegé Stephen Colbert really represent in the chaotic maelstrom of American culture. As Almond astutely notes, far from actually serving a newsworthy role, let alone consistently educating mass audiences by criticizing the empire…Stewart and Colbert are trivializers of evil, their legacy …one of defanging the truth about systemic evil by hurling toothless parody at it. But the real mark of approval by the power elites is that their media—besides bestowing on these figures global fame and employment at royal salaries—can’t seem to stop hurling bucketfuls of praise in their direction. Goes without saying that, while Stewart and Colbert get drenched in accolades for their antics, real critics of the emperor are confined to obscurity, poverty and often persecution.

The existence of Stewart and Colbert buttresses the empire’s claim to real democracy and freedom

We have stated on a number of occasions that when a system gets to be as monstrously gargantuan as America’s, it can literally have its cake and eat it too. The American edifice of power is so huge that observers are often confused by seeing different branches of the US government apparently doing and saying things that contradict each other, while the lethal and shady business goes on as usual.

In this context, with a machinery of self-justifying propaganda approaching near perfection, the system can boast another quiet triumph for its ability—in reality its having the luxury—to tolerate instances of radical dissent, not to mention the pseudo radical arrows loosed by the likes of Messrs.Stewart and Colbert. The irony in all this is that precisely by brooking a radical but politically impotent and negligible fringe (which has the correct take on reality but suffers from minuscule reach), the system propagandists can crow over the strength and virtues of America’s democracy and freedom, the envy of the world. Aha, the citadel on the hill still shines!

In the case of these two comics, the political payoff is magnified. For while the true left is allowed to operate relatively unmolested due to its sheer obscurity and harmlessness, Stewart and Colbert’s putative radicalism, long classified as ineffectual by the powers that be, can be marshaled around the world as proof conclusive that in America free speech is alive, well and thriving! That’s one helluva gift for a system beginning to be perceived by many as scandalously lacking in legitimacy.

[printfriendly]

REBLOGGERS NEEDED. APPLY HERE!

And remember: All captions and pullquotes are furnished by the editors, NOT the author(s).

What is $5 a month to support one of the greatest publications on the Left?

The Israel Lobby’s $50M Campaign Against The Iran Nuclear Deal

Richard Silverstein | Mintpress.com

If the Iran deal passes, Israel loses. The Israel lobby is spending big on whatever it takes to make sure this doesn’t happen.

THE DARK FORCES OF REACTION MASS TO BREAK THE DEAL

Dateline: July 22, 2015

Every US president bows to the Israeli lobby. Here Barack Obama exchanges a few words with AIPAC president Lee Rosenberg after addressing the American Israel Public Affairs Committee’s (AIPAC) annual Policy Conference in Washington Sunday, March 4, 2012. (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster)

WASHINGTON — The next 60 days offer a fateful window through which Congress will review the Iran nuclear deal announced last week to great fanfare by the P5+1 powers and their Iranian counterparts.

At the end of this period, both the House and Senate will vote on the agreement. Though the GOP has a majority in the latter body, it’s by no means a given that the vote will go against the deal. The Los Angeles Times reports there may be a few Republican senators who can be swayed if public opinion is running in favor.

To that end, the various groups within the Israel lobby have announced a massive PR campaign seeking to move both public opinion and the votes of individual senators against the deal.

Last week, The New York Times reported that the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the pro-Israel lobby, has created a stand-alone group, Citizens for a Nuclear Free Iran, for this purpose. It plans to spend $20-40 million on the effort.

Times Square Rally on 22 July 2015 (See Addendum)

[dropcap]T[/dropcap]he group’s website doesn’t list staff and a board of directors. Instead it lists an “advisory board” consisting of the usual hawkish Democratic former senators, including Mark Begich, Joe Lieberman, Mary Landrieu, Evan Bayh, and former Rep. Shelley Berkley. Clearly, this isn’t an independent organization, but rather one established and controlled by AIPAC. Unlike some of groups below which are casting their nets wide, AIPAC seems to be targeting Democratic senators on the fence.

So far this year, according to U.S. Senate public records, AIPAC has spent nearly $2 million on direct lobbying, more than it’s ever spent in any previous six-month period since 1999. This is a further indication of the group’s dead-seriousness in pursuing the defeat of the Iran measure.

Will AIPAC use the ‘Doomsday Weapon’?

The Israeli media site, Walla, even invokes AIPAC’s use of a dreaded “Doomsday Weapon,” a massive payback campaign against those who defy the group and vote for the agreement. This would take the matter to a whole new level: It’s one thing to advocate against a Congressional bill; it’s quite another to spend the tens of millions it would take to fund primary challengers and general election opponents of any Democratic senators defying AIPAC in this vote.

A PREVIOUS DEMONSTRATION=KEEP IRAN NUKE-FREE Rally NYC- 3-27-15
They’ve been at it for a long time, and rallies like the latest a few days ago have been used before. The clueless, complicit media, is happy to oblige with its own brand of superficial nincompoop coverage.

Since the article clearly describes internal organization deliberations on the subject, this is not idle speculation. If AIPAC feels it’s on the cusp of winning, it could wheel out the heavy guns of intimidation and blackmail it utilizes in such circumstances.

Of course, if it does make such a major financial and political investment, there is the distinct possibility it could lose, as it did in the fight over the Menendez sanctions resolution. That bill would have torpedoed the Iran negotiations by adding further draconian sanctions against that nation. Democratic support for the measure collapsed amid the hostile fallout from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s address to Congress in March. A similar loss in this case would involve considerable loss of prestige and the sense of invincibility which AIPAC exploits to great advantage in Washington backroom politics.

With the recent announcement of restoration of diplomatic ties between the U.S. and Cuba, it’s worth contemplating the toll the blockade against the island nation took on both its inhabitants and relations between the two countries. For fifty years, the U.S. relationship to Cuba was held hostage by a powerful domestic lobby which rewarded its political friends and punished its enemies.

President Barack Obama finally decided enough was enough. He determined that the power of the anti-Castro lobby in Florida had waned sufficiently to take U.S. policy in a new direction. The Israel lobby wields precisely the same sort of power on matters related to Israel. What would happen if a loss on the nuclear deal put America’s policy on Israel “in play” as happened regarding Cuba policy?

In Seattle, United Against Nuclear Iran aired a TV ad in recent days during prime time. And last month, the group’s chairman, Mark Wallace, who served as the United States’ ambassador to the United Nations under President George W. Bush, boasted of what he’d spend against the deal: “We have a multi-million-dollar budget and we are in it for the long haul. Money continues to pour in.” The group has also distributed a press release expanding on its plans.

United Against Nuclear Iran’s June, 2o15 ad decrying the Iran nuclear deal:

United Against Nuclear Iran is known for exposing companies allegedly doing business with Iran. Their M.O. has been to approach company executives and threaten to “out” them as sanctions scofflaws if they didn’t stop, and, even better, if they didn’t donate to the group.

One shipping owner, Victor Restis, challenged United Against Nuclear Iran, and when the group accused him of violating sanctions, he sued them for libel. In an unprecedented intervention by the government in a private commercial lawsuit, the Justice Department in 2014 asked the judge to shut down the case on the grounds that exposure of the documents Restis was demanding would damage national security. Reporters covering the story wrote that much of the material Restis wanted was believed to have been furnished to United Against Nuclear Iran by Israel’s Mossad or even the CIA. Such a revelation would have exposed the level of collusion between the two intelligence agencies and their exploitation of purportedly independent, non-partisan NGOs to advance their political agenda.

Politico reported last month that the American Security Initiative had bought $1.4 million worth of TV ad time targeted to the June 30 deadline to complete the agreement. American Security Initiative is a hawkish national security 501(c)4 founded by former Republican Sens. Saxby Chambliss (who recently said Edward Snowden should be hung), Norm Coleman, and Democrat Evan Bayh.

Politico also noted another pro-Israel lobbying group, Secure America Now, founded by push-poll specialistsPat Caddell and John McLaughlin, was pouring $1 million into its own media blitz targeting undecided Democratic Sens. Richard Blumenthal, Michael Bennett and Chuck Schumer. Secure America Now was launched in the aftermath of the Islamophobic campaign against the building of a mosque “on holy ground” near the World Trade Center site.

Watch Secure America Now’s spot featuring an Iranian mushroom cloud:

Another group likely to be closely involved is The Israel Project, whose director, Josh Block, was formerly AIPAC’s public face. The Israel Project will undoubtedly add its own voice to the media melee.

Meanwhile, the tumult over the deal has entered the Republican presidential primary campaign. South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham, seeking to bolster his flagging prospects, has made opposition to the deal a cornerstone of his campaign. At a recent press conference in New York, at which he promoted his new website,No Nukes for Iran, he warned if the deal was ratified New York City would be one of the Ayatollahs’ first targets. Business Insider reports:

“’Where do you think they’d like to come most outside of Washington?’ Graham said. ‘Right where we’re sitting.’

‘New York City represents America,’ Graham added. ‘This is the place that they’d choose to hit us again if they could.’

Flanked by Sen. John McCain (R-Arizona) and former Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-Connecticut), Graham struck an almost apocalyptic tone when discussing the deal. He frequently drew parallels between Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and Adolf Hitler, suggesting that the deal posed an enormous threat to Israel and to the US and that it would lead to a nuclear-arms race in the Middle East.”

Meanwhile, supporters of the bill in Congress have some new allies in Israel itself. Jonathan Alter reports in the Daily Beast that former Shin Bet chief Ami Ayalon fully supports the measure. The Israeli navy veteran also reeled off the names of other senior military and intelligence figures who support it.

Adelson: The $64-million question

FILE - In this May 4, 2015 file photo, Las Vegas Sands Corp. Chairman and CEO Sheldon Adelson testifies in court in Las Vegas. A news organization and nonprofit group want a Nevada judge to unseal a private investigator's report that they say may tie casino company Las Vegas Sands Corp. to organized crime in Asia. The Campaign for Accountability says in its motion filed Monday, June 8, 2015, that it also wants to see the report because the group believes it might help determine if the Republican donor Adelson used money linked to overseas criminal activity for election donations. (AP Photo/John Locher, File)

Sheldon Adelson is the ugly (but true) face of the Israeli lobby. His own money is as dirty as it comes. In this May 4, 2015 file photo, the Las Vegas Sands Corp. Chairman and CEO testifies in court in Las Vegas. A news organization and nonprofit group wanted a Nevada judge to unseal a private investigator’s report that they say may tie casino company Las Vegas Sands Corp. to organized crime in Asia. (AP Photo/John Locher, File)

The casino magnate Sheldon Adelson is the great unknown among all the donors in the Israel lobby sphere. He alone could spend many times the $40 million AIPAC plans to spend, should he choose to. Given his status as Benjamin Netanyahu’s prime financial backer and the $100 million he spent on Mitt Romney’s failed presidential bid, Adelson will likely weigh in on the subject as well. By a conservative estimate, the Israel lobby could spend upwards of $50 million on this campaign. Should Adelson go “all in” (to use gambling parlance appropriate for him) that figure could climb to $100 million.

There are a few organizations which plan to weigh-in on behalf of Secretary of State John Kerry’s agreement. Among them are J Street, an American Jewish group dedicated to supporting Obama administration foreign policy. It plans to spend between $2-3 million in support of the deal. The National Iranian American Council, led by Trita Parsi, has long supported the deal. It’s not known how much it will invest, but its budget and resources aren’t nearly a match for AIPAC.

At a recent National Iranian American Council conference, former Dem. House member Jim Slattery warned of the mind-boggling phenomenon this campaign represents:

“I’ve been around this town for about 30 years now … and I’ve never seen foreign policy debate that is being so profoundly affected by the movement of hundreds of millions of dollars in the American political system.”

President Obama has shown himself adept at outmaneuvering his political adversaries concerning Iran. The failed Menendez bill is just one example. The political math concerning the current legislation also is in the president’s favor. Even if the Senate rejects the nuclear agreement, he will veto it. That means the GOP majority will need 13 Democratic votes. Undoubtedly, they will gain a few. But it’s exceedingly unlikely they will get all of them. If they don’t, the agreement will be ratified and the president wins.

Israel loses if nuclear deal wins

[dropcap]S[/dropcap]uch a victory has repercussions for AIPAC and the power of the Israel lobby. But it has even more far-reaching implications for Israel and its changing role in the Middle East. Until now, it has been the indisputable power in the region, especially among the frontline states of Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and Palestine. What Israel wanted, it got. Having 200 nuclear warheads only reinforced Israeli dominance.

The nuclear agreement could augur an age in which Iran takes its place as a responsible participant in regional politics. Instead of supporting Islamist militants in Lebanon and Syria, it might coordinate efforts with the U.S. to contain the Sunni Islamist threat represented by al-Qaida and the self-proclaimed Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). It certainly will allow Iran to become a commercial power, with foreign delegations arriving in Tehran daily to negotiate new business deals that would follow the lifting of sanctions.

Israel could see its stature recede considerably as Iran’s rises. That’s why Prime Minister Netanyahu has been touting a purported alliance between his nation and the Sunni Gulf states. In fact, The New York Times’s editorial endorsing the Iran deal says Netanyahu has taken this one step further: He’s said that on Iran, Israel has more in common with the Sunni states than with the U.S.

It’s possible this is precisely the sort of posturing for which Netanyahu is well-known. But given the United States’s role as Israel’s arms guarantor in every major war it has fought, it’s extraordinary for the prime minister to claim Arab states are his new go-to allies. During Israel’s next war against Hezbollah or Hamas, does he think King Salman of Saudi Arabia will give him the munitions he needs to maul Lebanon or Gaza?

ADDENDUM

Thousands Of Protesters Rally In Times Square Against Iran Nuclear Deal

‘Stop Iran Rally Coalition’ Says If Deal Isn’t Overridden, Sen. Schumer Will Be To Blame July 22, 2015 11:35 PM

NEW YORK (CBSNewYork) — Thousands of demonstrators gathered in Times Square Wednesday evening in protest over the recent landmark nuclear deal with Iran.

As CBS2’s Jessica Schneider reported, some 10 thousand are rallying in solidarity with signs and voices raised against the nuclear deal.

Protest organizers proclaim: “Washington is prepared to give Iran virtually all that it needs to get to the bomb. To release $150 billion to Iran will result in the expansion of worldwide terror.”

Former New York Governor, and Presidential contender, George Pataki joined the chorus of voices urging lawmakers to block the deal.

“Reject this deal. Protect America. Protect Israel and protect the world from freedom,” Pataki said.

The Stop Iran Rally Coalition — which claims to be a bi-partisan group — is also calling out Sen. Charles Schumer, saying he “has the votes as presumptive leader to override this deal….If this deal is not stopped, New York voters will know whom to blame.”

Sen. Schumer said in a statement Wednesday that he wasn’t ready to make a decision on the deal yet.

“I’ve read the agreement and I’m seeking answers to the many questions I have. Before I make a decision, I’m going to speak at length with experts on both sides,” the lawmaker said.

Thousands Of Protesters Rally In Times Square Against Iran Nuclear Deal

Al Jones reports

play

In Washington, Secretary of State John Kerry led back-to-back, closed-door briefings, trying to sway lawmakers to approve the deal to curb Iran’s nuclear program.

“We are convinced that the agreement that we have arrived at with world powers is an agreement that will prevent Iran from the potential of securing a nuclear weapon. It will make the region, our friends and allies safer, it will make the world safer,” Kerry said. “And we are convinced that the absence of any viable alternative absolutely underscores that fact.”

Meanwhile, Israel’s ambassador to the U.S. is fiercely lobbying lawmakers to reject the deal. And Republicans are pledging to do just that.

“Because a bad deal threatens the security of the American people, and we’re going to do everything possible to stop it,” said Speaker of the House Rep. John Boehner.

And many at the rally said more people in the country need to start listening and speaking out as well.

“I’m very concerned about what our situation is here. Nobody wants this deal to go through and we’re hoping that Obama will hear the voice of the American people and we’re hoping that Congresswill listen to what we have say. And hopefully we can do something about that,” said one protester.

“I feel people really don’t understand the main issue. To me the main issue is not what happens 10 years from now, but what happens as soon as the sanctions are removed from Iran,” another protester told Schneider. “Which is the main terrorist regime in the world, which spreads terrorism all around the world, which is responsible for the deaths of Americans as well as Israelis.”

Several academic, military, and political leaders will speak to the crowd Wednesday night. All of them urge that this is an issue that transcends politics and they’re urging Congress to keep sanctions against Iran, even if it means overriding President Barack Obama’s likely veto on any legislation against the deal, Schneider reported.

Congress has 60 days to approve or reject the deal. The Senate will hold a hearing on the deal Thursday.

[printfriendly]

REPOSTERS NEEDED. APPLY HERE!

And remember: All captions and pullquotes are furnished by the editors, NOT the author(s).

What is $5 a month to support one of the greatest publications on the Left?

The Iran Deal: The Usual Disinformers Strike Again

The Sunlight Foundation filed this report on the forces distributing this insidious ad.
FURTHER CONTEXT IS PROVIDED BY THE COMMENTARY ATTACHED.

New dark money group to air anti-Iran nuclear deal ad in 18 states

Arak IR-40 Heavy Water Reactor, Iran. (Photo credit: Wikimedia Commons)

[dropcap]A[/dropcap] newly formed dark money group called “Citizens for a Nuclear Free Iran” will begin running ads in at least 18 states, according to public documents. Ads in most markets begin today or tomorrow.

Earlier this week, Iran and a group of six other countries, including the United States, reached a deal intended to limit Iran’s nuclear abilities while lifting economic sanctions. The deal is vehemently opposed by many Republicans, and some Democrats, though whether Congress is able to kill the deal is yet to be seen.

Documents filed with the Federal Communications Commission and processed by Sunlight’s Political Ad Sleuth show the ads landing in at least 18 states, in markets from Portland, Ore., to Hartford, Conn.

Citizens for a Nuclear Free Iran was set up as a nonprofit corporation in Washington, D.C., last month. Setting up a nonprofit corporation is a common tactic used to hide the source of a group’s funding.

Disclosure documents list only Patrick Dorton as being behind the group. Presumably that’s the Patrick Dorton who’s a partner at Rational 360, a “full service strategic communications” firm. That Patrick Dorton worked in the Clinton White House and has previously worked with The American Israel Public Affairs Committee. Calls made to Rational 360 and another phone number listed on the documents were not immediately returned.

The Sunlight Foundation is a non-profit, nonpartisan organization that uses the power of the Internet to catalyze greater government openness and transparency, and provides new tools and resources for media and citizens, alike.

Source: http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2015/07/16/new-dark-money-group-to-air-anti-iran-nuclear-deal-ad-in-18-states/

The Iran nuclear deal. Good deal or bad deal?

The Iran nuclear pact and US imperialism’s drive for global hegemony

Keith Jones

[dropcap]A[/dropcap]fter 20 months of negotiations, the Obama administration last week reached agreement with Iran, China, France, Russia, the UK and Germany on a 15-year accord to “normalize” Iran’s civil nuclear program. Should this agreement survive the opposition of sections of the US ruling elite, it will constitute a significant tactical shift on the part of US imperialism, one with potentially far-reaching implications.

Since the 1979 Iranian revolution toppled the Shah’s bloody US-backed dictatorship, implacable opposition to Iran has been a constant in US foreign policy. During the past 12 years, Washington dramatically intensified its campaign of bullying and threats. Having ordered the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, respectively Iran’s eastern and western neighbors, George W. Bush twice came close to launching war against Iran.

In 2009, the Obama administration sought to bring about regime-change in Tehran via a “Green Revolution” fomented through unsubstantiated claims of a stolen election. Two years later, Washington cajoled its European allies to join the US in imposing the most punishing economic sanctions ever deployed outside a war.

Now, in exchange for sweeping concessions from Iran, Washington has agreed to suspend the economic sanctions and provide Tehran a 15-year path to “normalize” its civil nuclear program.

Obama has stipulated that last week’s agreement with Tehran is limited to the constraints on its civil nuclear program. Yet Obama, Secretary of State John Kerry and other leading US officials have also made clear that they view the agreement as exploratory, a means to test Iran’s intentions. Their policy of “engagement” with Iran is a strategic bet that through a combination of continuing pressure and inducements, including an influx of Western investment, US imperialism will be able to harness Tehran to its predatory agenda.

The Republican Party leadership, the Wall Street Journal and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) are publicly opposing this shift. They are demanding that Obama extract iron-clad guarantees of Tehran’s submission and warning against sidelining the US’s traditional Mideast client states, above all Israel and Saudi Arabia.

The public bluster of the Republicans, however, is not necessarily an indication of the real intentions of the main decision-makers in the Republican Party. To some extent, the Republicans’ opposition can prove useful to Obama in prying further concessions from Tehran. That said, it is far from certain the Iran nuclear accord will be implemented, let alone endure.

The nuclear accord and the fractious ruling class debate over it are a reflection of the mounting problems that US imperialism faces as it seeks through aggression and war to offset the erosion of its relative economic power and to confront multiplying challenges to its global hegemony.

There is deep dissatisfaction within the US ruling class over the outcome of the three major wars the US has waged in the broader Middle East over the past decade-and-a-half. In Ukraine, Washington has thus far been stymied, with the sanctions imposed on Russia failing to produce the desired results. To the Obama administration’s dismay, many of its closest allies, led by Britain, defied the US and signed up as founding members of the Chinese-led Asian Infrastructure Development Bank earlier this year.

All of this has left the Obama administration and the US ruling class groping for an effective, integrated plan of attack.

Certain things can be said concerning the trajectory of US imperialism, the strategic calculations that underlie the proposed shift in US relations with Iran, and the implications of this shift:

* Obama and the entire US ruling elite are determined to maintain US global hegemony through military force.

There is something decidedly ominous about the president’s repeated proclamations over the past week that the failure of his diplomatic turn to Iran would result in war. These comments underscore that Washington is far from renouncing violence and point to the explosive character of global relations.

* Central to American imperialism’s global strategy is dominance over Eurasia, the vast land mass that is home to almost two-thirds of the world’s population.

In pursuit of this aim, Washington has long viewed Iran as an especially significant prize. The country stands at the intersection of three continents (Europe, Asia and Africa), commands the Straits of Hormuz, through which 40 percent of the world’s exported oil flows, straddles two of the world’s most energy-rich regions (Central Asia and the Middle East), and itself possesses the world’s second largest natural gas and fourth largest oil reserves.

* Washington’s trumped-up conflict with Iran over its nuclear program was never just about Iranian-US relations. Nor was it solely about control of the Middle East. It always involved the broader question of US relations with the world’s major powers.

Even as US dependence on Mideast oil has declined, Washington has stepped up its efforts to maintain control over the Middle East so as to ensure domination over a region that supplies many of its principal competitors in Europe and Asia, including China and Japan, with much of their oil.

* When Obama claims, as he has repeatedly done, that for US imperialism war is the only alternative to a nuclear deal with Iran that realizes many but not all of Washington’s objectives, he is, for once, not lying.

Had the sanctions regime started to unravel, Washington would have faced a demonstrable challenge to its pretensions to world leadership, one that it could not walk away from without suffering a major geo-political defeat. In response, it would have been obliged to extend the sanctions–in other words, retaliate against the “sanctions-busters” by freezing their overseas assets and denying Iran access to the US-European controlled world banking system. Or, in order to avoid such action, which could quickly spiral into a military confrontation with China or Russia, the US would have been compelled to render the issue moot by abandoning the sanctions in favor of all-out war.

The Pentagon has long been planning and gaming such a war. And while the American people know nothing of these plans, in various think tank reports it is openly admitted that a war with Iran—a country four times the size of Iraq and with nearly three times the population, and which has significant state and foreign militia allies—would quickly envelop the entire Middle East. It would further inflame the US-stoked Sunni-Shia sectarian conflict and, at the very least, tie down much of the US military for a protracted period. Last, but not least, such a war would incite rising popular opposition in the US, where class tensions are already fraught after decades of social reaction.

Obama is arguing that US imperialism has a cheaper, more prudent alternative. One, moreover, that, as Defence Secretary Ashton Carter boasted Sunday, “does nothing to prevent the military option” in the future.

* The agreement with Iran has been designed to give the US the maximum leverage over Iran and the maximum strategic flexibility. Should Tehran prove insufficiently pliant or should circumstances change, the US can initiate procedures to automatically “snap back” the sanctions and pivot back to confrontation with Iran.

Moreover, all of Obama’s arguments in favor of the nuclear accord—his assertion that it is better to “test” Iran’s intentions than immediately embark on a war that could prove hugely damaging to US imperialism’s strategic interests—are predicated on Washington’s supposed right to wage pre-emptive war against Iran.

* The Obama administration sees Western engagement with Iran as a means of preventing Tehran from being drawn into closer partnership with China and Russia. China is already Iran’s biggest trading partner and Russia its most important military-strategic partner.

A further US priority is to see if it can enlist Iranian support in stabilizing the Middle East under Washington’s leadership. The US and Iran are already at least tacitly allied in supporting the Iraqi government and Iraqi Kurdish militia in opposing ISIS in Iraq.

The Obama administration has also served notice that it intends to use the nuclear agreement to pressure Iran to assist it in reaching a political agreement in Syria that would see Bashar al-Assad’s Baathist regime replaced by one more amenable to US interests. Reversing previous US policy, Obama announced last week that Tehran should “be part of the conversation” in resolving the Syrian conflict.

* Longer term, the supporters of Obama’s Iran gambit aim to “turn” Iran, transforming it into an advance post of US imperialism in the Middle East and all Eurasia. That means to return the country to the type of neo-colonial subjugation that existed under the Shah’s regime.

Toward this end, Washington plans to probe and exploit the deep fissures within Iran’s bourgeois-clerical regime. It is keenly aware that the reins of Iran’s government are now in the hands of a faction (led by ex-president Hashemi Rafsanjani and his protégé, the current president, Hassan Rouhani) that has argued since at least 1989 for a rapprochement with Washington and has longstanding close ties to European capital.

* The Iran nuclear accord only intensifies the contradictions in US foreign policy, laying the basis for future shocks.

While exploring engagement with Iran, Washington is seeking to placate its traditional regional allies by showering them with offers of new weapons systems and increased military and intelligence cooperation. These actions threaten Tehran, which—notwithstanding the relentless US media campaign aimed at depicting it as an aggressor—already faces a massive military technology gap, not just with Israel, but with Saudi Arabia and its Gulf allies.

Nor can the US afford to stand idly by as the European powers scramble to get back into Iran. On Sunday, Germany’s Vice-Chancellor and SPD leader Sigmar Gabriel arrived in Iran at the head of a German business delegation. French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius has said he will soon follow.

To secure support from the US ruling elite, Obama is stressing that he has only agreed to lift the latest round of US sanctions on Iran. Other sanctions imposed in the name of opposing terrorism remain, meaning US corporations continue to be effectively barred from doing business in Iran.

If the US is not to lose out in the race to secure Iranian assets, it must either move forward with rapprochement—over the strenuous opposition of Washington’s current Mideast allies–or revert back to confrontation and demand the Europeans and others follow suit.

* Other strategic calculations, many of a pragmatic and short-term character, also appear to be bound up with the Obama administration’s decision to consummate a deal with Iran now. One cannot make firm judgments about these calculations, as events are moving rapidly and Washington’s policies are fraught with contradictions.

However, it was striking that in the lengthy interview Obama gave to the New York Times last week, the US president praised President Vladimir Putin, saying the agreement with Tehran could not have been reached without Russia’s strong support. He added that he had been “encouraged” by a recent phone call Putin made to talk about Syria. “That,” declared Obama, “offers us an opportunity to have a serious conversation with them.”

Is it possible that Obama is considering responding positively to Putin’s pleas for a ratcheting down of tensions over Ukraine in exchange for Moscow’s abandonment of Syria’s Assad? Could this be bound up not just with the crisis of US policy in the Middle East, but also with growing tensions between Washington and Berlin? Could this be intended as a shot-across-the-bow to Germany?

The US ruling elite has reacted with dismay to Germany’s cavalier role in the recent negotiations between the EU and Greece—not out of any concern for the Greek masses, but because of Berlin’s bald assertion of its new role as Europe’s disciplinarian.

Should the US ruling elite ultimately opt to move forward with the Iran deal, it will be from the standpoint of better positioning itself to withstand challenges to its dominance, including through military means, from its more formidable opponents, not only Russia and China, but also Germany, Japan and the other imperialist powers.

[box] Keith Jones is a political writer with wsws.org.[/box]

[printfriendly]

Remember: All captions and pullquotes are furnished by the editors, NOT the author(s).

What is $5 a month to support one of the greatest publications on the Left?