The only silver lining in the wikileak scandal: The Guardianistas were proven wrong about Arab fears of Iran

The argument goes something like this:  The organized Jewish community in the U.S. controls (or “distorts”) U.S. foreign policy to achieve the policy objectives of a foreign nation, Israel.  Further, since Israel doesn’t want Iran to acquire nuclear weapons, the organized Jewish community is pushing the U.S. to attack Iran, contrary to what’s in the best interests of the U.S.  Moreover, such an act will further alienate the Arab world, whose main concern is the plight of the Palestinians.

Such arguments, in one form or another, are peddled constantly by the Guardian and other progressive publications.

The most interesting thing to come from the latest WikiLeaks round is Arab world leaders’ continual admission, behind closed doors, that the regime in Tehran (and not the Jewish state) is the biggest threat in the Middle East.

According to one cable, Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah “frequently exhorted the US to attack Iran to put an end to its nuclear weapons program.” In 2008, the king’s envoy to Washington told Gen. David Petraeus to “cut off the head of the snake” in the Islamic Republic.

According to another cable, King Hamad of Bahrain, a country with a majority Shi’ite population, urged in a meeting with former CENTCOM commander Gen. David Petraeus that action be taken to terminate Iran’s nuclear program. “That program must be stopped,” Hamad said, according to the cable. “The danger of letting it go on is greater than the danger of stopping it.”

While Arab states such as Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, the UAE, and Oman have privately conveyed such warnings to diplomats, they never had the courage to say so in public. That helps to explain why European policymakers frequently interpret Iran’s belligerence as a reaction to American and Israeli militarism.

In July 2008, Mubarak’s top concern for the stability of Iraq and the region is Iran. He believes that “as a result of the invasion of Iraq, Iran is spreading everywhere.” Mubarak calls Iranians “big fat liars” and say they sponsor terrorism. He said he believes this opinion is shared by other leaders in the region. Yet he opined that no Arab state would join the U.S. in a formal defense alliance against Iran for fear of retaliation.

In March 2009, Abu Dhabi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Zayed (MbZ) expressed his grave concerns about the Iranian threat to the region.

I hate to say we told you so (ok, I actually don’t mind so much), but for those at the Guardian and elsewhere, who, for years, have claimed that the only ones pushing the U.S. to attack Iran were (pick from four) Israel, Jews, neocons, or the Israel lobby, you were wrong.  To those who advanced argument after argument, with something approaching religious intensity, that the Arab world’s number one concern is the Palestinian issue, you were wrong.

As the Jerusalem Post noted,

“For years now, top Israeli political and defense leaders have warned the world that a nuclear Iran is not just a threat to the Jewish state but is a threat to the entire region.”

If the anti-Israel crowd had an ounce of integrity, or a sliver of decency, they’d be apologizing for their faulty analyses, and lamenting their myopia and nearsightedness.

In other words, we can be absolutely certain that such a mea culpa will not be forthcoming.

Note: In a similar vain, Melanie Phillips calls the anti-Israel conspiracy theorists out, here. Benjamin Weinthal makes the case at National Review Online, here.

11 replies »

  1. I think the whole thing is overblown.

    There is a new and potentially more interesting twist invoving our friends at the Guardian (could Matt Seaton be arrested by the US issuing warrants under universal jurisdiction?):

    WikiLeaks spurned New York Times, but Guardian leaked State Department cables

    But the Times wasn’t on WikiLeaks’ list of original recipients. The newspaper got its hands on the trove of about 250,000 cables thanks to the Guardian newspaper of Great Britain, which quietly passed the Times the raw material that it had received as one of five news organizations favored by WikiLeaks.

    WikiLeaks had worked with the Times this summer in releasing about 90,000 documents prepared by U.S. military sources about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    But the group pointedly snubbed the Times this time around, offering the State Department cables to two other American news outlets, CNN and the Wall Street Journal. Both turned WikiLeaks down, deciding that its terms – including a demand for financial compensation under certain circumstances – were unacceptable.

  2. You are right, but this hasn’t stopped the word “Zioleaks” being smattered all over the CIF pieces on the matter (the “Q&A” with Rusbridger in particular). Seriously, they don’t even care what the truth is.

  3. Guardianistas like Seaumus Milne are twisting in the wind, and desperately trying to downplay the revelations.

    His claims that the Arab leaders statements are evidence of the ‘relentless global mobilization of US power against Iran’.

    Which when you think about it is bollocks.

  4. The organized Jewish community in the U.S. controls (or “distorts”) U.S. foreign policy to achieve the policy objectives of a foreign nation, Israel.

    Some posters on CiF and elsewhere claim this – and indeed worse.

    But the Guardian itself does not “peddle” such a line.
    (oh, except for Richard Silverstein)

  5. Will the Guardian mention that King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia wanted all detainees released from Guantanamo bay to be microchipped containing their personal information.

    He was turned down by the Americans citing legal hurdles.Legal hurdles is not something that would bother the Saudis.

  6. Pretzel

    But the Guardian itself does not “peddle” such a line.

    No Pretzel they are busy peddling anti-semitic “art” like the play of Caryl Churchill, exposing the influence of the “Jewish lobby” on British politics, the killing of the Yiddish language by the Zionist occupiers, the cruel treatment of Israeli chickens and the rebuilding of the Berlin wall in Ghajar.

  7. pretzelberg, “But the Guardian itself does not “peddle” such a line.”

    But the guardians CiF DOES “peddle” such a line.

    Hence, CiFWatch.

  8. Great piece all around.

    I take issue with referring to the Guardian as a progressive publication; let’s call it a third world publication on account of its editorial content.

  9. Andy Gill

    “Guardianistas like Seaumus Milne are twisting in the wind”

    Who lets him in? Seaumus Milne is not good enough to write for some third-rate publication in Indonesia. The man is just plain stupid.

  10. Sergio Bramsole

    I take issue with referring to the Guardian as a progressive publication; let’s call it a third world publication on account of its editorial content.

    It’s really just a propaganda rag for disappointed Trots.