Reddit reviews Treacherous Alliance: The Secret Dealings of Israel, Iran, and the United States

Shows how foreign countries can influence and manipulate the foreign policies of other countries T

his confirms several specialists on Iran-Israel relations who said that Israel promoted a hostile US policy because it feared becoming irrelevant should the US and Iran get along -- see Trita Parsi's book, "Treacherous Alliances"

https://www.amazon.com/Treacherous-Alliance-Secret-Dealings-Israel/dp/0300143117

Note also wikileaks confirmed that Israel threatened to nuke Iraq to pressure the US to take a more aggressive stance there too

https://www.juancole.com/2012/06/campbell-israeli-pm-sharon-threatened-bush-with-nuking-iraq-mearsheimber-walt-vindicated.html

>"The pro-Iran" lobby AKA anti war lobby.

Those are not the same thing. Being pro-Iran involves being pro-war. You just want a war in Syria, Yemen, etc.

> He is a widely respect specialist whose book about how Israel was pushing for a US war on Iran, is widely lauded. https://www.amazon.com/Treacherous-Alliance-Secret-Dealings-Israel/dp/0300143117

Widely respected is a loose term here. Nathan Thrall, who is very anti-Israel, pointed out that the book blurs the line between actual history and lobbying/propaganda. The book is wrong on its premise, as no war ever resulted. He has served as part of the lobbying machine, rather than as an expert. He doesn't criticize Iran's most heinous groups and proxies, has been praised by Iran's regime, and has influence in Iran because they like him and his lobbying...if the relationship isn't deeper than that.

When he was accused of being a shill for the regime, he sued the guy making the accusation for defamation, claiming he was lying. Parsi couldn't prove the guy was lying in court. He lost the case.

Then they appealed. The appeals court said they flouted deadlines, misrepresented documents, and were "dishonest and intransigent". They ended up having to pay over $180,000 in fines because, while they failed to prove that the accuser was lying when he called them shills for Iran, they were lying to the court too.

> Even the Jerusalem Post admitted that Netanyahu was pushing the US into a war with Iran

No, it didn't.

>"Netanyahu may not mind this scenario, as his primary goal throughout Obama's presidency– it is understood by his generals– was to have the US do the job of crippling Iran’s program through force on the world’s behalf."

I'm not sure why you'd misquote this source.

First of all, it isn't "the Jerusalem Post". It's an op-ed, by Michael Wilner. He is one correspondent. He does not represent the paper.

Second of all, the next few sentences say:

> Netanyahu likely sees Trump as a different animal who is either more likely to use force against Iran or, in the least, more likely to be feared if and when he threatens it

They're also talking about the possible threat of force, not just use of force. That's what Netanyahu wanted during Obama's years. Wilner is wrong if he means to say Netanyahu did want war. If Netanyahu wanted war, he'd have struck Iran himself in 2012 when given the option.

> Whatever labels you want to toss out, it is hardly just him saying it, Thee dispute was never about nukes or enrichment. He directly quotes Israeli officials too.

No, he doesn't quote Israeli officials. He makes a blanket statement without a source. Please do not misrepresent your own source.

Well, the Shah was indeed out of touch with the average Joe Religious which is why there was a revolution, and many of his (secular and religious) opposition forces were highly critical of Iran's position on Israel. Some of the dissidents received military training in Palestinian camps and Libya etc. and carried out attacks in Iran, such as the MEK (also known as NCRI currently) but Israel was not a high priority item in the revolutionary agenda apart from rhetoric

Not sure what you mean by "their principles and political philosophy" of Isarel (there are many versions and they don't agree among themselves) but the assumption that the Arab Israeli conflict has something to do with Muslims hating Jew and vice versa, is false. Arafat was secular, the leader of the PLFP was a Christian, and the regimes of Saddam, Nasser, Assad and Hossein was all secular. Baathism is secular too. Iran's current opposition to Israel is also not because they're Jews or something, and in fact Iran's current position is that they'll go along with a peace that the Palestinians accept with Israel not that Israel must be "wipe off the face of the Earth" and other such BS. There are large Jewish communities in Iran, after all, for over 2000 years.

Indeed the Iranians had reached out to the US and included even recognition of Israel as part of the Arab Peace Initiative, but Iran was spurned by the US since back then, Israel was certainly not about to accept the Arab Peace Initiative since it included the recognition of Palestinian rights, and the Bush admin was more interested in toppling Iran's govt rather than getting along:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/17/AR2006061700727.html

As documented in this award-winning book it was actually the Israelis who turned hostile on Iran, since they saw a threat in the potential improvement of US-Iran relations, in the post-Cold War era when Israels value as an ally to the US is uncertain: http://www.amazon.com/Treacherous-Alliance-Secret-Dealings-Israel/dp/0300143117

This is really what's underneath the anxiety of Israel: If Iran and the US get along, who needs Israel?
The Saudis also didn't like it that the US had designated Iran as the Policeman of the Persian Gulf either (though they benefited from it security-wise) so they don't want to be left out in improved US-Iran relations. Iran was a competing oil producer, and the Shah liked to occasionally tweak the Saudi noses by for example sending female diplomats to represent Iran, and they (Nasserr started it) in turn called the Persian Gulf, the "Arabian Gulf" just to piss him off

Remember, when Nixon decided to recognize Communist China, the US kicked Taiwan to the curb. Israel doesn't want to be a Taiwan if the US decided to "go to Tehran" as Nixon did.

should iran and the us get along, israel's strategic value to the us would drop, which is why pro-israeli agents have been pushing so hard to prevent a us-iran rapprochement

this book is all about that; http://www.amazon.com/Treacherous-Alliance-Secret-Dealings-Israel/dp/0300143117

Paul Pillar explains why Israel sees Iran as a competitor http://nationalinterest.org/blog/paul-pillar/the-real-subject-netanyahus-congressional-spectacle-it-isnt-12337

Israel wants the US to go to war against Iran for it, or at least to make sure the two don't get along, because then Israel would not be as important if they do get along.

Here is an award-winning book explaining precisely that: http://www.amazon.com/Treacherous-Alliance-Secret-Dealings-Israel/dp/0300143117

So, pro-Israeli lobbyists have been active for quite a while in the US to push their agenda to start a US-Iran war, :

http://www.uscatholic.org/culture/war-and-peace/2008/06/iran-spam

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/israel-prodding-us-to-attack-iran/

just as they pushed for the US invasion of Iraq

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/israel-to-us-dont-delay-iraq-attack/

Remember, when the US decided to recognize Communist China, the non-Communist Taiwanese -- who until then were considered the legal govt of China by some -- were kicked to the curb. Many American foreign policy experts believe that in dealing with Iran, the US should "go to China" as President Nixon did by recognising and accepting Iran as a reality http://www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/if-nixon-can-go-to-china-20130303

But Israel doesn't want to be a third wheel. Iran has 80 million potential consumers of US goods and services as well as a growing well-educated middle class -- while Israel keeps getting the US into trouble and drags her down like ball and chain into a quagmire of war and ethnic cleansing. If the US and Iran get along, who needs Israel?

The Saudis are similarly concerned. They don't want to return to the days of the Shah when Iran was the "policeman of the Persian Gulf"

Also, the "Iran threat" is very useful for Israeli politicians who want to pretend to be the great defenders of Israel though in private they don't feel all that threatened. http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/livni-behind-closed-doors-iranian-nuclear-arms-pose-little-threat-to-israel-1.231859

Nuclear weapons "capability" is a bullshit scaremongering term, which they're using because they don't have any actual evidence of any actual weapons so they frame it as "capabilities".

In fact 40 nations already have a nuclear weapons capability, and this is simply because civilian and military nuclear technology is the same not because 1 out of 4 nations on the planet plan on making nukes. Beware of this "capability" weasel language. http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:8V0ezWHGCYAJ:www.seattletimes.com/html/nationworld/2002041473_nukes21.html+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

People just assume that Iran must want the bomb but that's just an assumption

http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/ten-reasons-iran-doesnt-want-the-bomb-7802

And note who these authors are who say that Iran's nuclear program is not in breach of international law http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/jun/09/iran-nuclear-power-un-threat-peace

But the US wants to keep the "Iranian nuclear threat" alive, since it is a convenient pretext to try to topple their government, just as "WMDs in Iraq" was just as a lie and a pretext to invade Iraq.

http://www.reddit.com/r/iranpolitics/comments/2xih2d/iran_offer_to_cut_centrifuges_by_a_third_led_to/cp0ed8x

Read more about Iran's nuclear program here http://www.amazon.com/Manufactured-Crisis-Untold-Story-Nuclear/dp/1935982338/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1425173705

Well according to this award-winning book,
https://www.amazon.com/Treacherous-Alliance-Secret-Dealings-Israel/dp/0300143117/


because Israel is threatened by the idea of the US and Iran starting to get along, since that would reduce Israel's strategic value and relations with the US, especially in the post-Cold War era (assuming Israel was an asset and not a liability during the Cold War.)

See, when Nixon decided to "Go to China" he had to dump Taiwan, which until then was officially recognized as "China" by the US (and not the mainland communist country)

So, Israel doesn't want to become a Taiwan if the US and Iran get along.

It is also about domestic Israeli politics. Netanyahu gains power by exaggerating external threats tho Israeli officials themselves quietly admit that they're not particularly threatened
http://www.haaretz.com/news/livni-behind-closed-doors-iran-nukes-pose-little-threat-to-israel-1.231858

I think this would come close though it is a a bit more academic and has footnotes 'n stuff

Treacherous Alliance: The Secret Dealings of Israel, Iran, and the United States

https://www.amazon.com/Treacherous-Alliance-Secret-Dealings-Israel/dp/0300143117

>Israel and Iran were allies pre-Islamic revolution and there is even significant evidence that suggests they cooperated against Saddam post-revolution. There is no historical enmity between the Israelis and the Persians - you'll often see demonstrations where Iranian youth protest against the funding going to Hezbollah and Hamas. There are about 250,000 Persian Jews living in Israel.

For anyone interested in this relationship, I'm reading a very good book on the subject: "Treacherous Alliance: The Secret Dealings of Israel, Iran, and the United States" by Trita Parsi

-Treacherous Alliance: The secret dealings of Israel, Iran and the United States, by Trita Parsi, Yale University Press, 2007

(Also from Parsi: https://www.ted.com/talks/trita_parsi_iran_and_israel_peace_is_possible?language=en)

-Arming Iraq : How the U.S. and Britain Secretly Built Saddam's War Machine pg. 20-34 specifically

-https://nsarchive.wordpress.com/2012/03/09/document-friday-when-iran-bombed-iraqs-nuclear-reactor/

-http://www.wrmea.org/1986-november/israeli-arms-sales-to-iran.html

Also, although not a "source," r/AskHistorians had a pretty interesting thread about it.

To say that people "hate us" or "love us" is a bit simplistic
For example the same people of Iran massively support their nuclear program and resent US pressure on their country over that issue
http://www.rand.org/pubs/technical_reports/TR910.html

The same Iran cooperated with the US over the toppling of the Taliban and had even tried to turn over Al-Qaeda members to the US, but was refused by the Bush admin

http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1913323,00.html

The real problem is Israel.

See, back in the 1970s when the US (under President Nixon) decided to recognize Communist China, they had to kick Taiwan to the curb (until then Taiwan was deemed to officially represent China in the US, not the communist govt in the mainland)

If Iran and the US start to get along, then Israel (and Saudi Arabia) become a third wheel. So israel has been pushing for a US-Iran war instead for a long time now and the pro-Israeli lobby has been active in the US to try to impose as many obstacles to improved relations between Iran and the US as possible

See for example this: http://www.uscatholic.org/culture/war-and-peace/2008/06/iran-spam
or This http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/world/article1985525.ece

This book is all about this issue
https://www.amazon.com/Treacherous-Alliance-Secret-Dealings-Israel/dp/0300143117

Iran and Israel actually cooperated afrer the 1979 Islamic Revolution.

According to the award winning book by Trita Parsi, it was actually Israel that escalated the conflict with Iran, because they feared that if the US and Iran start to get along then Israel will become a third wheel.

https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0300143117

>But it wasn't Iran that turnedthe Israeli-Iranian cold war warm – it was Israel...The Israeli reversal on Iran was partially motivated by the fear that its strategic importance would diminish significantly in the post-cold war middle east if the then president (1989-97) Hashemi Rafsanjani’s outreach to the Bush Sr administration was successful. https://www.opendemocracy.net/democracy-irandemocracy/israel_2974.jsp


Even Israeli politicians quietly concede that Iran isn't actually the threat they make it out to be
http://www.haaretz.com/livni-behind-closed-doors-iranian-nuclear-arms-pose-little-threat-to-israel-1.231859

It really doesn't matter what their personal opinions are, the fact is that the fundamental legitimacy of the House of Saud rests on religious grounds and the acquiescence of Wahhabist clerics


>Anti Americanism is basically their state ideology.

Nope. Actually the Iranians repeatedly tried to reach a peace with the US that the NeoCons Israelis opposed and undermined, which only hurt US interests in the end. This was the case for example over the nuclear issue:

>In 2005, Iran offered a deal. We rejected it, refused to talk to Iran directly, and doubled down on sanctions. Ten years later, we settled for much less than what was originally offered.
https://chasfreeman.net/lessons-from-americas-continuing-misadventures-in-the-middle-east/


>While Iran is extremely dogmatic

No, sorry, actually Iran is far more flexible and it was Israel that decided to turn up the conflict with Iran because after the Cold War, Israel was threatened by the liklihood of improved US-Iran ties.

This book is all about that : https://www.amazon.com/Treacherous-Alliance-Secret-Dealings-Israel/dp/0300143117

Anyway why is accepting Israel a sign of "pragmatism"? Iran also backed Nelson Mandela while the US had labeled him a "terrorist" and while Israel was trying to sell nukes to the racists apartheid pariah regime in S Africa
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/may/23/israel-south-africa-nuclear-weapons

>non-rational

Lets see, that "non-rational" country of Iran was attacked by US-backed chemical weapons provided to Saddam Hussein, that resulted in 100,000 casualties -- how many 9/11s is that

https://foreignpolicy.com/2013/08/26/exclusive-cia-files-prove-america-helped-saddam-as-he-gassed-iran/

https://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/17/opinion/IHT-halabja-america-didnt-seem-to-mind-poison-gas.html

And that "non-rational" government had every legal right to resort to chemical weapons of its own in self-defense...but refused to do so on moral grounds and accepted the casualties
https://web.archive.org/web/20030102224708/http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/programs/dc/briefs/030701.htm

That "non rational" government also warned Bush that invading Iraq was a bad idea
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/jul/24/iraq.iran

But Bush decided to listen to the Israelis instead
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iraq/1404673/Sharon-urges-America-to-bring-down-Saddam.html

So who is "non-rational" and "dogmatic"?

He's hardly the only one that says that the prospect of the US and Iran getting along threatens the Israelis and the Saudis which is why they're pushing for a US war on Iran -- this award-winning book is all about that

Treacherous Alliance: The Secret Dealings of Israel, Iran, and the United States

https://www.amazon.com/Treacherous-Alliance-Secret-Dealings-Israel/dp/0300143117

And everybody is entitled to their opinion. Just because you didn't know something or don't agree with it, doesn't make it a "conspiracy"

this is the dumbest shit I've ever seen. The US is hostile to Syria because of joint GCC-Israeli lobbying to counter the "Shi'a Crescent".

It's not Assad, it's Iran and Hezbollah they're after.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Clean_Break:_A_New_Strategy_for_Securing_the_Realm

All of this monsanto, central banking crap is fiction. The US's policy since the 80s was for to remove Syria from Iran's sphere of influence and to bring stability to lebanon. The US had on and off relation with Hafez and Bashar.

Then Bush added Iran to the Axis of Evil, after collaborating with Iran in Herat, and Syria went into the defensive which only stoked hostility .


TL:DR: It was the Israel lobby

https://www.amazon.com/Treacherous-Alliance-Secret-Dealings-Israel/dp/0300143117

https://www.amazon.com/Israel-Lobby-U-S-Foreign-Policy/dp/0374531501

How is that relevant to the US? If anyting that makes Israel a competitor for US high tech.

Until the revolution, Iran was a backward dictatorship run by a corrupt tin pot tyrant installed by the US and average literacy rates were below 50%. No longer.

As for relations with israel, it was the Israelis that decided that a stable and prosperous Iran with good relations with the US threatened their privileged relations and decided to try to get the US and Iran to go to war. http://www.amazon.com/Treacherous-Alliance-Secret-Dealings-Israel/dp/0300143117/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1381252527&sr=8-1&keywords=trita+parsi

Iran is perfectly capable of performing R&D and contributing to the sciences too. Anyone is, because Israelis are not inherently smarter or more scientific that anyone else. It is simply a matter of having resources. In fact Iran is the worlds' fastest growing country, scientifically-speaking, and there is a long long history of academic relations between the US and Iran. If ties were improved, all of this can create a great market for US products and services in Iran, from low-tech to hi tech ... and who needs Israel? What actual function does israel serve other than to create a mess in the Mideast and make 2.5 million peole homeless?

A really brief but super-informative survey of 20th century Middle Eastern history is Avi Shlaim's War and Peace in the Middle East.

David Lesch's The Arab Israeli Conflict: A History focuses primarily on the eastern Mediterranean but discusses the region more broadly as well.

Trita Parsi's Treacherous Alliance covers the history Israeli-Iranian relations in a really engaging way.