Alright, it's Antiwar Radio.
Now we turn to Grant Smith.
He's the director of the Institute for Research Middle Eastern Policy in Washington, D.C.
That's IRMEP, I-R-M-E-P.org, IRMEP.org.
And he's the author of a bunch of books about the Israel lobby and their history and corruption in America.
The most recent one is Spy Trade, How Israel's Lobby Undermines America's Economy.
And he has a piece at Antiwar.com today called Obama vs. Reagan on AIPAC.
Welcome back to the show.
How are you doing, Grant?
Hey, Scott.
I'm doing great.
Thanks for having me on.
Well, I'm very happy to have you here.
So who's this Ronald Reagan character and what was ever good about him?
Well, he was the gipper.
He was the actor, governor-turned-president of the United States who, back in the 80s, before many Americans were born, was having a showdown with the Soviet Union all across the globe in Central America, the Middle East, etc., etc.
Yeah, I remember being a small kid afraid of hydrogen bombs killing me because of him.
Well, it was a scary time and I think a lot of people have forgotten, but the legacy of the Cold War is still with us.
In fact, so many icons of that age with weapons systems or strategic alliances still live on despite the demise of the evil empire, as he used to call it.
Yeah, indeed.
Well, you know, it's a funny story for those who never heard of it where they had that summit at Reykjavik, Iceland, where he thought he was on a Blues Brothers mission from God to get rid of all nuclear weapons on Earth, starting with us and the Soviets, and he was going to get it done and the only thing that stood in his way was he had promised the American people he was going to pursue this ridiculous lie of a missile defense system that could have never worked, especially way back then, that he had somehow been convinced to believe in and therefore blew the greatest chance the world ever had to get rid of the hydrogen bomb stockpiles in the world.
I mean, they really were that close to doing it.
Star Wars, yeah, and that legacy lives on.
I mean, neoconservatives very much had their wagons hitched to the idea of that boondoggle and how it was going to provide billions in defense contractor dollars and the spinoff consulting fees they make.
You know, the Team B that was always overestimating Soviet capabilities was all over that right into the Bush II administration where missile defense was going to be a key focus, but oh whoops, then 9-11 came and they totally knocked it down on that.
Well, you know, I think I even read somewhere that Richard Perle or one of these guys had denounced Ronald Reagan for even thinking that he would make a peace agreement with the Soviets like that.
Yeah, you know, just any valid historical analysis shows just how misleading and horrible the policy analysis coming out of that group has been.
But, you know, Condoleezza Rice and a lot of the Bush II administration people were spending much more time talking about missile defense than they ever were about hijackers running airplanes into buildings, that's for sure.
Yeah, well, you know, in Andrew Kopern's book on Rumsfeld, he says that their first choice was Dan Coats, the former senator, who I don't know if he was particularly friendly with Bush the father or what, but during his job interview he said something to the effect of missile defense, oh come on, that's a giant boondoggle, we don't want to waste hundreds of billions of dollars on that.
And they said, yeah, don't call us, we'll call you.
That's exactly the point, of course, and then that was when Cheney said, well, I know this guy Don Rumsfeld, but your father hates him, and then Junior said, really, yeah, bring him on in.
And that was how Rumsfeld got the job.
And, you know, totally misreacted, if that's a word, to the entire situation of terrorism, which is what they had to deal with.
Even the first minute, when he went outside, instead of going to the command room or whatever, you know?
Well, you know, the thing about Reagan is this, you know, you mentioned that anti-war article, and the Reagan presidential library in Simi Valley, of the state that you just left, let loose a bunch of documents last week showing sort of the 360 degree pressure cooker that was around President Reagan in his last year trying to force him to go to the AIPAC annual conference.
And I thought that was an appropriate thing to write about, because Obama has just announced that he may be going to AIPAC.
In fact, they just confirmed it to the presidential spokesperson, not to give a major policy address, but to kind of reaffirm the unending blank check that is U.S. economic and military support to Israel.
And so, you know, the interesting thing about these Reagan-era documents is they show the original AIPAC invitation, and they show all of Reagan's people, whether it's White House staffers or congressional Republican leaders or leaders in the Senate, telling him to go.
And this is a president who really got, you know, virtually every policy he followed suggested by AIPAC at the end burned him.
And, you know, whether it was the free trade agreement where they stole all of the confidential negotiating documents his team was working on, whether it was, you know, this group that was meeting to continue sales to Iran back at the end of the 70s and early 80s, you know, Israeli intelligence officials and arms dealers that managed to get the Reagan administration to think that was a way to free hostages in Lebanon.
And so my article really goes through all of the reasons that Reagan had for not going to AIPAC and kind of the audacity of the invitation and, you know, this organization thinking that he would ever go to this in a million years.
And in the end, he didn't find it to be a particularly fitting place for a U.S. president to go.
The schedule shows he certainly could have, but he wasn't up for reelection like our esteemed president is, and he didn't have to worry about this group anymore, and so he took the right course and said, no, thanks.
Well, you know, it's interesting.
To read the article, it sort of reads like they really wanted Reagan to come and bestow his legitimacy on their group, whereas now Obama is desperately seeking their approval the other way around.
He needs legitimacy from them.
Right.
Well, you know, the Jewish Telegraphic Agency analysis is kind of that he's going there to outflank Benjamin Netanyahu, who's going to be, you know, at this conference and appearing to a joint session of Congress, and that Obama is kind of sneaking into AIPAC to kind of re-up his anti-terrorist credentials with the recent slaying of bin Laden and kind of try to outshine the superstar who's coming, basically uninvited in terms of the U.S. government, coming over to stage his own rallies in the United States.
But, you know, I just think it's the wrong move because, as you say, it is a thing conferring legitimacy, and this is an organization with a history of election fraud, a history of, you know, as I said, trafficking classified U.S. documents, trying to turn, for example, as we know, back in 2004, 2005, turn some national defense documents received from Laurie Franklin and Jim Netto up into a U.S. war with Iran.
This is a group that no president should be speaking before and giving legitimacy to, and it's kind of a reflection of the sad state of affairs that he feels he has to do that.
Yeah, well, you know, it's funny.
Back in 2008, when some people were choosing to believe in Barack Obama, he went and gave a speech there where he promised to be horrible on Israel issues, and everybody who wanted to believe in him said, oh, yeah, but he's just got to say that, and it seemed to me that, you know, if he's promising bad things, believe him on that.
You know, when he promises good things, that's why he's skeptical, but I don't see why he would outflank Netanyahu on anything.
Don't they agree on every issue or what?
I haven't seen that.
You know, George Mitchell just resigned the other day because he had no back from the president whatsoever to resolve anything over there.
Well, I don't think he agrees with everything that Netanyahu says, but, you know, as you say, they haven't had any spine.
What you say is true.
Obama did capitulate, and he was promising AIPAC, you know, territorial concessions on behalf of the Palestinians even before the Democratic National Convention.
So he's basically adopted virtually every policy line of the group except for wanting to slow settlements.
All right.
Hold it right there, Grant.
We'll be right back, everybody.
It's Grant Smith from IRMEP.org.
All right, y'all.
It's Antiwar Radio.
I'm Scott Horton.
I'm talking with Grant F. Smith.
He's the director of Institute for Research Middle Eastern Policy.
That's IRMEP.org.
And that website is an absolute treasure trove worth its virtual weight in titanium or something for all the documents and all the extensive research on the Israel lobby available for your viewing pleasure there.
IRMEP.org.
And now, so we're talking about the politics of the Israel lobby and Obama's upcoming speech there.
Now, I think when we were interrupted by the break, Grant, you were saying that perhaps there's something to the idea that Obama is trying to maybe outflank Netanyahu on the political capital thing, leading up to some kind of change in Middle Eastern policy.
I don't know.
Yeah, you can view this either as a cynical reelection ploy, but it's a little bit early for that.
But what was happening last year at this time is that Obama was, you know, fighting to limit the growth of illegal Israeli settlements, whereas AIPAC and Netanyahu were saying, no, this is not an issue that can be linked with anything.
You know, we can't be talking about, you know, settlements or their financing or anything like that.
And so they were marching in lockstep.
And I don't know whether people remember it, but this little group, this crappy little group called Cold Pink put out a fake press release during the AIPAC convention saying that AIPAC was asking the Israelis to stop illegal settlements.
And that caused a firestorm.
It was on national public radio.
It got a huge amount of attention.
And AIPAC and Josh Block, their spokesperson at that time, had to scramble to tell everybody, no, no, we didn't say that.
And, of course, they wouldn't say that, because if you really trace the origins of AIPAC, it was when its founder left the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs in 1951 to lobby for American guns and aid.
I mean, that's what it's been doing ever since.
And it marches in lockstep with the Israelis many times in direct contradiction of U.S. laws and U.S. presidential policies.
So, you know, the one thing that Obama did finally stand up to the Israelis on, which is illegal settlements as a destabilizing force, you know, he couldn't get it.
And he's obviously not going to try to do that at this particular CONFAB.
What he's trying to do, I think, is keep a lid on things and keep the tone of U.S.
-Israeli relations as being positive and forward-looking and try to ensure that Netanyahu isn't the one who's defining what the U.S. vision for the region is.
But, you know, we've also heard, of course, that Netanyahu may be coming to spring his own peace plan on the U.S., which would obviously favor probably lots of land grabs and things the Palestinians don't want.
So it's going to be a very interesting conference.
Well, I mean, even with that, would that be, regardless of how much in Israel's favor it would be, is that something that would actually be meant to be a peace deal, or this is more just generations-long peace process forever and get nowhere?
Because that seems to be the strategy, right?
Yeah, it's just, for me and for other observers, it's just simply another empty gesture.
Meanwhile, settlement building goes on, the land grabs go on, and, you know, sort of the continuation of the idea that Israel's in danger and that its very existence is at stake, and so it's an emergency.
It's always an emergency, and the time is just not quite right for bigger moves.
So, you know, the whole policy has always been to keep a state of emergency and let that define what needs to be done, whether it's added U.S. aid or weapons or diplomatic support.
I mean, that and the resurgence of a campaign to make the U.S. confront Iran, I think, are going to be the two major agenda items at the AIPAC conference.
But, you know, what they're going to be facing this year is something entirely different.
The Code Pinkers have invited more than 100 organizations to Washington, D.C., between May 21 and 24, to be in front of AIPAC at the D.C. Convention Center.
They've actually got conference spaces in front of the center so that people on the other side of the issue, like Mearsheimer and Walt and luminaries who understand how the lobby works, like Chaz Friedman and Nadia Hijab and Philip Weiss, and my organization are going to be there giving workshops and seminars on how to contain this and confront it effectively at the same time that the AIPAC shooting is going on.
Well, do tell.
How do you do that?
Well, you know, people need, if anyone listening is going to do anything this year, what they need to do is to go to moveoveraipac.org and sign up and look at the options for housing, look at how they can get here by Saturday at latest at 8 a.m.and come and pay their, you know, sliding scale of $25 to $100 to be in on at least two days, but preferably four days of education and confrontation.
And this confrontation is going to be taking place.
Well, this is really an unprecedented thing, isn't it?
It is totally unprecedented.
I mean, I do have to hand it.
It seems as though, and you mentioned this on your show, it seems to people as though the anti-war movement has been taking a hiatus, but that's not the case.
Code Pinkers are very organized and very focused, and they've been working hard on this, and many organizations like mine have been working with them to make sure this is a success.
But this is a major confrontation.
This is confronting the Department of Justice saying, hey, why do you continually fail to regulate this organization when it's committing crimes every year?
It's about confronting Obama and then Yahoo as they enter this building.
It's about relaunching some complaints and criminal filing that other U.S. agencies, which we're keeping under wraps for now.
But this is going to be much more than has ever been done to confront AIPAC directly.
And I think, you know, the model clearly is, hey, you know, this is career square.
People who really are sick of this type of manipulation and corruption can have a real impact by coming to Washington this weekend.
Well, I hope you have good bouncers, because COINTELPRO is going to send some David Duke supporters to try to be your friend.
You know that.
Well, we do, actually.
There are people, and you do have to register.
You can't just show up as some sort of, you know, false flag with your, you know, ultra-ultra-ultra-anti-Semitic T-shirt and pretend that you're in this, because you're not.
This is organized by luminaries such as Jewish Voices for Peace, the Council for the National Interest, other serious organizations that won't be putting up with that type of nonsense.
This is a serious event to talk about policy.
It's not going to be derailed by spurious charges.
I mean, that's typical, but most of the people coming to this have seen that before and they're not afraid to confront it.
Yeah, good.
Well, so what do you think is changed by the giant protests and the 20 dead yesterday?
I haven't really seen the updates from this morning.
But has that changed the politics in D.C.?
Are they going to be able to get away with saying, see what terrorists these terrible Arabs are?
Is this going to, you know, maybe work the other way?
Like, hey, you guys are shooting unarmed people.
You're acting just like the Arab dictatorships and the uprisings in all your neighboring states, you know?
The action succeeded in one purpose, which is putting the word Nakba on the headlines of every major newspaper.
But, I mean, you know, this is once again shooting unarmed protesters across the border who are approaching your border fence as a war crime.
It's not a security action.
It's not dealing with a legitimate threat.
And, you know, when you look at some of the media reports of what happened, you've got people, you know, wanting to enter the occupied Golan Heights.
Well, you know, what's the moral legitimacy of the so-called most moral army on Earth for shooting Syrians who are entering Syria?
I mean, what's the legitimacy of that?
So I think it's another black eye.
This is one of those subjects which, you know, within Israel you can't talk about the Nakba.
It's another censorship necessitated by Zionism.
You can't talk about a lot of subjects there or in the U.S.
And, you know, this isn't getting the best coverage, but I think it will have the effect of heightening the urgency to do something, because it's clear now the Egyptians aren't satisfied with being, you know, the Gaza prison guards and a lot of the other countries facing the pressures of the uprising aren't going to be willing, compliant players in propping up corrupt policies that are hatched in Tel Aviv and Washington.
All right.
Well, we're over time.
We're going to have to leave it there, but I really appreciate your time on the show today, Grant, as always.
Appreciate it, Scott.
And good luck.
Oh, wait.
You know what?
Tell them again the addresses and such things.
Yeah.
It's www.moveoverapac.org.
You need to sign up.
You need to pay.
You need to come.
Please do it if you are on the East Coast or within range.
All right.
Thanks again.
Everybody, that's Grant F. Smith, antiwar.com.
We got a piece by him today.
His website is www.irmep.org for the Institute for Research Middle Eastern Policy.
And we'll be right back.
