The Passionate Attachment

America's entanglement with Israel

Israel lobbyist hints that ‘Pearl Harbor’ may be needed to get US into war with Iran

with 18 comments

By Maidhc Ó Cathail
The Passionate Attachment
September 25, 2012

Last Friday, during question time at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy policy forum luncheon on “How to Build US-Israeli Coordination on Preventing an Iranian Nuclear Breakout,” the director of research at the pro-Israel think tank hinted that a Pearl Harbor-type attack might be necessary to get the United States to go to war against the Islamic Republic.

“I frankly think that crisis initiation is really tough,” said Patrick Clawson, who also heads the Washington Institute’s Iran Security Initiative, in response to a question about what would happen if negotiations with Tehran fail. “And it’s very hard for me to see how the United States … uh … President can get us to war with Iran.”

As a consequence, Clawson said he was led to conclude that “the traditional way [that] America gets to war is what would be best for US interests.”

Intriguingly, he went on to recount a series of controversial incidents in American history — the attack on Pearl Harbor, the sinking of the Lusitania, the Gulf of Tonkin incident, and the blowing up of the USS Maine — that US presidents “had to wait for” before taking America to war.

“And may I point out that Mr. Lincoln did not feel he could call out the federal army until Fort Sumter was attacked,” Clawson continued, “which is why he ordered the commander at Fort Sumter to do exactly that thing which the South Carolinians had said would cause an attack.”

“So, if in fact the Iranians aren’t going to compromise,” the Israel lobbyist concluded with a smirk on his face, “it would be best if somebody else started the war.”

Note: Clawson begins his answer around the 1 hour 15 minute mark.

Update: It’s worth noting that op-ed in the Jerusalem Post magazine earlier this year raised the possibility of just such an attack. In a piece entitled “The looming war with Iran,” Avi Perry, who served as an intelligence expert for the Israeli government, confidently predicted:

Iran, just like Nazi Germany in the 1940s, will take the initiative and “help” the US president and the American public make up their mind by making the first move, by attacking a US aircraft carrier in the Persian Gulf.

The Iranian attack on an American military vessel will serve as a justification and a pretext for a retaliatory move by the US military against the Iranian regime. The target would not be Iran’s nuclear facilities. The US would retaliate by attacking Iran’s navy, their military installations, missile silos, airfields. The US would target Iran’s ability to retaliate, to close down the Strait of Hormuz. The US would then follow by targeting the regime itself.

Elimination of Iran’s nuclear facilities? Yes. This part would turn out to be the final act, the grand finale. It might have been the major target, had the US initiated the attack. However, under this “Pearl Harbor” scenario, in which Iran had launched a “surprise” attack on the US navy, the US would have the perfect rationalization to finish them off, to put an end to this ugly game.

Unlike the latest attempt at an Iranian revolution, this time the US would not shy away, rather, it would go public, openly calling for the Iranian people to join in with the US in working to overthrow the corrupt Islamic fundamentalist regime. The Iranian people would respond in numbers.

Spring would reemerge, and the Iranian people would join the rest of the Middle East – this time with the direct support of the US.

The greatest irony behind this most significant episode in 2012 is that the Iranian regime would affect their own demise. Attacking the US navy in the open seas is equivalent to carrying out a suicide bombing.

Written by Maidhc Ó Cathail

September 25, 2012 at 9:39 am

Posted in Uncategorized

18 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. […]… Posted in Zionist Threat « Obama dismisses Israel’s calls for red lines on Iran’s nuclear program as ‘noise’ […]

  2. […]… […]

  3. 1 hour, 18 minutes, 51 seconds

    “We are in the game of using covert mean against Iranians“.

    Anyone thinking Jundallah.

    Saur Ben Zvi

    September 25, 2012 at 12:24 pm

  4. So we should prepare for another 9/11? This is the exact Straussian theory. Leo Strauss, a German Jews, arrived in the US in 1938 and taught at several major universities before his death in 1973. Strauss believed that the role of religion was indispensable to the political success of a nation. For a political society had to hold together and act as a unit in lock step with the leader. Strauss believed that religion was the means to inculcate the desired ideas into the minds of the masses. He didn’t care what religion—just as long as it was a religion that could link itself to the political order.” Paul Wolfowitz, Doug Feith, Don Rumsfeld and Michael Ledeen did their doctoral studies under the tutelage of Leo Strauss at Chicago and it is they who brought Straussian ideology to government and have wrapped their “policies” around that ideology. Strauss believed that the perpetual deception of the citizens by those in power was because they need to be led, and they need strong rulers to tell them what’s good for them. The Weimar Republic in Germany was his model of liberal democracy for which he had huge contempt. Liberalism in Weimar, in Strauss’s view, led ultimately to the Nazi Holocaust against the Jews.
    Irving Kristol, among other neoconservatives, has argued that separating church and state was the biggest mistake made by the founders of the US republic. Secular society in their view is the worst possible thing, because it leads to individualism, liberalism and relativism, precisely those traits that might encourage dissent, which in turn could dangerously weaken society’s ability to cope with external threats. “You want a crowd that you can manipulate like putty,”.
    “Strauss thinks that a political order can be stable only if it is united by an external threat,” “Following Machiavelli, he maintains that if no external threat exists, then one has to be manufactured. Had he lived to see the collapse of the Soviet Union, he would have been deeply troubled because the collapse of the ‘evil empire’ poses a threat to America’s inner stability.

    September 25, 2012 at 3:48 pm

  5. reply to Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich, You do know separating church and state was the best thing the zionists could have ever done if the US didn’t seperate church and state then the zionist would not have gained much political muscle as they do and they would probably be treated exactly how the muslims are treated today in the west or maybe worse because their christ killers to a lot of ppl.


    September 25, 2012 at 4:58 pm

  6. In mentioning “controversial” attacks, I wonder why Clawson didn’t mention 911? I guess that one hits a little too close to home. PNAC was the first to mention a “new Pearl Harbor”. These guys are slipping up. But then the arrogant do make mistakes.


    September 25, 2012 at 6:32 pm

  7. This is all part of Israel’s end game … the truth regarding 9/11 is starting to surface and that will not endear Israel to the world at large.


    September 25, 2012 at 7:20 pm

  8. Soraya,

    I think we should be prepared for some kind of false flag attack from “somebody else.”

    As robertsgt40 observed, it’s interesting that Clawson didn’t mention 9/11 — the “war on terror” catalyzing “new Pearl Harbor” event sought by PNACers Kristol and Kagan et al. which Netanyahu infamously admitted was “very good” for Israel.

    Maidhc Ó Cathail

    September 26, 2012 at 6:36 am

  9. It’s worth remembering Zbigniew Brzezinski’s February 2007 warning (to Senator Biden’s Foreign Relations Committee). He said there might be an attack blamed on Iran and this would be a disaster for US policy as the war would spread in uncontrollable ways. I’m not a supporter of Obama but it seems the Empire faction that doesn’t want a full scale war is part of the Brzezinksi / Biden / Obama / Clinton group. The neo-cons are the Rmoney foreign policy team.

    As for 9/11, the parallel is obvious, but it’s not Israel’s “end game.” They played a role, as did the Saudis, the Pakistanis, Bin Laden’s group, Cheney and NORAD.


    September 26, 2012 at 7:44 am

  10. Here’s a video of Ralf Langner, Stuxnet decoder. The virus was original found by Sergey Ulasen that now works for Kapery Labs.

    Saur Ben Zvi

    September 26, 2012 at 10:46 am

  11. Got the wrong video, the link sends me to the wrong video. Just search for the title:

    Stuxnet decoder Ralph Langner speaks about Stuxnet

    Saur Ben Zvi

    September 26, 2012 at 10:49 am

  12. They all start giggling at the thought of a false flag. What mad men they are and total psychopaths. I hope EVERYONE writes to this sociopathic nut and tell him to get his kids prepped for war. Seriously, if enough people bombard them with mail they may think twice about another 9/11 style instigator to war. I feel that the people who have pounded the 9/11 inside story bit have helped prevent more of these over these last 11 years.


    September 26, 2012 at 2:21 pm

  13. Who cares. Let Israel fuck Iran and save America. Do you really think that Obomba has the power to rule and protect America?

    Abe Bird

    September 26, 2012 at 5:37 pm

  14. […] WINEP – founded by the pro Israel lobby AIPAC: WINEP Director of Research on Iran Patrick Claw… Share:DiggTwitterRedditFacebookDruckenStumbleUponE-MailGefällt mir:Gefällt mirSei der Erste dem dies gefällt. Veröffentlicht in Uncategorized | Getaggt mit 9/11, AIPAC, Colonialism, Crisis Initiation, Israel-Lobby, Mass Murder, Palestine, Patrick Clawson, Regime Change, Settlements, Staged Provocations, the traditional way that America gets into war, War of Aggression, WINEP, Zionism | Kommentar schreiben » […]

  15. I don’t think that Romney wants a war with Iran either. I just think he is going to be far more aggressive in trying to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power. He wants to bring them to the bargaining table, and make incentives for them to not go nuclear (but you have to read between the lines a bit). However, if it comes down to it, and Israel engages because other efforts have failed — Romney is more likely to back their play. In the end I don’t know if we can really contain the spread of nuclear weapons, but I do think we can delay it for awhile.

    Tim Beers

    September 30, 2012 at 4:50 am

  16. […] evils” that ensue from America’s (and some other countries’) passionate attachment to Israel.Go to Original – thepassionateattachment.comClick to share this article: facebook | twitter | email. Click here to download this article as a […]

  17. […] September 25, The Passionate Attachment broke the story of the Israel lobbyist who suggested that a Pearl Harbor-type attack might be necessary to get a […]

  18. […] The Passionate Attachment broke that story on September 25, there were only about 100 views for “How to Build US-Israeli Coordination on […]

    WINEP’s Most-Viewed Videos of 2012: Will Patrick Clawson Make it to No.1? « The Passionate Attachment

    December 27, 2012 at 5:06 pm

Leave a Reply