Israel Lobbyist suggests False Flag attack to start war with Iran

Israel lobby flack Patrick Clawson strategizes how to trick the United States into going to war against Iran on behalf of Israel.

The ‘Washington Institute for Near East Policy’ is itself one big false flag operation that uses ‘policy analysis’ to push far rightwing Israeli plans for perpetual war and Occupation in key US government agencies. US government personnel are even *detailed* there to ‘learn’ about the Middle East!

Clawson and his shop were important in fooling the US into the Iraq War, and here is a little golden oldie from that effort:

Patrick Clawson, ed. How to Build a New Iraq After Saddam, Washington Institute for Near East Policy, 2002.

I hear the sequel, “How to Build a new Iran after Khamenei,” is just about out.

The US press corps and radio and television people who keep having WINEP provide them talking heads are being duped. As for having WINEP teach US government personnel about the Middle East, you may as well just send them to settle the West Bank.

15 Responses

  1. Clawson has been a long-standing Piece Of Work (POS?). He’s got at least a couple “scholarly” books out, due to his expertise on those wild-eyed Iranians, based on nothing more than his client focus. The epitome of a Flaming Shill.

    And in looking at US policy in the Middle East, you have to appreciate how the top back-benchers who develop the policy arguements are not just affiliated with WINEP, but represent its backbone: I’m thinking of Dennis Ross and Martin Indyk. The clout of the The Lobby is such that SoS Clinton felt compelled to make Ross her Top Guy on Iran for at least the beginning of the Obama adm, after which he burrowed his way over to be the Lead person on Iran at the NSC.

    These people, and a number of others whose names aren’t so well-known, do a lot to frame the argument for Clinton and others, who at some level, and despite the domestic political consequences, want to put the best interests of the US first.

    Then there are the balance of the people involved with developing options, Aaron David Miller comes to mind, who are compromised without realizing it. I’m thinking of a piece Miller wrote for FP this summer, where he set-out to boil away the BS and get to the heart of what US interests (and hence actions) in the ME really should be, “Politically Incorrect,” being part of his piece’s title. He then immediately premised his analysis by saying, essentially, that Israel was the 51 state and US actions needed to be to it’s best interest, and proceeded from that point.

    link to

    And this guy is one of the MORE sincere guys I see influencing policy development! No, I kinda like Clawson: with him there’s no question who you’re listening to.

  2. from the amazon review section:

    “The country’s ethnic groups are not necessarily the key social actors to watch.” page 5

    “Owing to the regime’s propaganda and to the material conditions of their lives, many Iraqis do not appreciate the nuances of Western sanctions policies, and they may have formed political views that are based on supposed Western ill will toward their country.” page 12

    “…the physical repair of Iraq will be relatively easy. Iraq is a country of engineers and builders, people who quickly restored bridges and roads after the Iran-Iraq and Gulf Wars.” page 12

  3. RE: false flag attacks, how about an Israeli sub sinking a major US warship in the Persian Gulf? The Iranians get blamed, and voila, brand new oil war.

    • The Persian Gulf is so shallow that subs can be seen by satellites. Most of the Gulf is less than 50 meters / 165 feet deep. The deepest point is only about 100 meters below the surface.
      Now, once out in the Gulf of Oman, depths drop precipitously to over 5,000 feet, but there’s rumors that our latest satellites can even see subs at those depths.
      What you posit could still happen, but our Intel agencies would know.

      • It’s posited that our Intel agencies knew and know a whole lot about the Israeli efforts to sink the USS Liberty, efforts that killed 34 US sailors, wounded 140, that to the chagrin of the Israelis and due to the valiant efforts of the remaining crew, stayed afloat. link to

        It seems there is another kind of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” in play in the US military/security state. No guarantee that “our intel agencies,” that foster critters like Jonathan Pollard and where some of the players, apparently not the ones who drive “policy,” consider Israel to be the US’s biggest threat in the Middle East, would report the presence and actions of one of those German U-boats now owned and operated by the Israeli Navy, even if the Israelis sank one or more of our billion-dollar ships. link to

        • This is very much my point.

          Looking at the actual experience of Israeli behavior toward the US and its neighbors, its consistency has been absolute. And we (the US) need to extend the timeline on that behavior out a bit.

          In terms of anticipation, Israel would in-turn look to US behavior, which has been consistently obsequious (I’ve been looking for a chance to use that word: meaning in my mind permeating, and broader than simple subservience).

          Exhibit A of what Israel could and did get away with was the Liberty incident. Looking more closely at the circumstances, I do not think it was planned, at least not by the Israeli government. But it was no mistake on the part of the local IDF, and the lesson’s to be learned would have been absorbed by their leadership, along with countless other pieces of feckless US behavior.

          No. If Israel did just such a provocation in the Gulf and the US knew it in real time, it’d be easier for the US, politically, to go with flow. Give the Captain of the sunk Enterprise (scheduled for decommission anyway) the Medal of Honor in a “private” ceremony on the dock at a naval base as they did to shut up the commander of the Liberty.

          Clawson’s blatancy may turn the collective stomach, but this is how the people he has supplicated his career to happen to think: that’s what has embolden this grandstanding little performance. THAT is why he has done as well as he had in his career. For his manager, Clawson stands to be reigned in for purposes of PR, but don’t think he doesn’t reflect the thinking of his peers and supervisors.

    • I think this is a more literal/correct example of a “False Flag.” What Clawson seemed to suggest was tricking/provoking something/anything the US could use as an excuse to go ballistic.

      It seems like I recall the Israelis regularly deployed their diesel subs, complete with big nasty (US made) anti-ship missiles (Harpoons) to the Gulf. I’d also heard its relatively shallow littoral waters were considered a nearly perfect operational environment for the new breed of sub they have.

      All sorts of people read this blog, and I wouldn’t be surprised if the insight of Brian went deep. Still, in terms of a military operation, once assigned this sort of project would become just another operational problem to be solved.

      You have to come back to the underlying Israeli intentions and strength. Do they as a people, reflected by the Likud regime, really feel themselves at the existential risk being portrayed? Have they boxed themselves into such a corner with all their talk that they’ll feel absolutely compelled to do something genuinely risky? In all matters of human behavior you have to give the most weight to demonstrated patterns of behavior.

      All things considered, at some level, this is something I’d think the US needs to be actively prepared for.

  4. Give this disgusting little chicken hawk twerp a rifle and put him in a fighting hole in the hottest sector of the hottest war on the planet. See how tough he is in two days.

  5. I wonder if this Patrick Clawson is the same one who I used to know who claimed to be a member of the Maoist organization the Progressive Labor Party. He seemed to know something about the Middle East.

  6. You’re being too kind too the media. I wish it were true that they are being duped rather than willingly promoting WINEP’s agenda.

  7. The concept of a “false flag” operation to delude the U.S. into rash military action is nothing new.

    Lyman Lemnitzer, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, once approved “Operation Northwoods”, later rejected by Prseident John F. Kennedy.

    Operation Northwoods proposed false flag plans to spur the U.S. government into invading Cuba. One plan was to have an unmanned American boat in international waters near the Cuban coast equipped with remote-control explosive devices that would be detonated and cause Cuban patrol vessels to come near to investigate. American sailors would then embark on the disabled vessel under the guise of attempting to rescue survivors (which would be mannequins). The responding Cuban patrol craft would then be accused of causing the prior detonation via hostile fire causing “casualties” to the “crew”.

    Operation Northwoods has been suggested as evidencing the willingness of the American military to create international incidents to advance their own political agenda and relied upon by conspiracy theorists to suggest that the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated by the U.S. government to spur U.S. involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq.

    • Remember the Maine! link to

      What a bunch of stupid cattle we are, plowing and planting and harvesting wealth to fill the silos of slicker others, and at the end being hauled off to the knacker where they use up the rest of everything, including that terminal bellow…

  8. I was wondering who let that kid mouth off like that. According to the experts at Wikipedia Patrick Lyell Clawson was born 1951-03-30. His bio at WINEP avoids dates. As they say ‘senoir moment’. Does he look look 61 to you? That’s a lot of work that guy had done.

Comments are closed.