Ray McGovern

Ray Commentary, September 16, 2019

In the past, Israel has said “No Thanks” to such a mutual defense treaty, and Ray had an unusual chance to try to explain Israel’s attitude during a speech at the National Press Club five years ago.*** (See below.)

Agreeing with Ray’s take on things is not something top Israeli intelligence officials are accustomed to doing, so it seemed odd, at first, to hear the former chief of Israeli military intelligence publicly express views virtually identical to those expressed by Ray at the National Press Club.  Israel’s attitude?  So who needs a treaty? The “special” Israel-U.S. relationship brings us Israelis more one-sided advantages than we can count. The text of the latest article on this subject follows, with the link at the end.

Former IDF Intelligence Chief on US-Israel Defense Treaty: Security Establishment Has Always Decided ‘Disadvantages Outweigh Advantages’
By Benjamin Kerstein, September 15, 2019

A former chief of Israeli military intelligence said on Sunday that the idea of a mutual defense treaty between Israel and the United States has been considered before, but the Israeli security establishment has always rejected it.

Speaking to Israeli news website Mako, Amos Yadlin made the remarks in response to President Donald Trump and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s recent discussions of a possible defense treaty. When the issue arose in the past the military and security services repeatedly concluded that the “disadvantages outweighed the advantages,” he said.

The most important misgiving, said Yadlin, is that Israel “could lose its freedom of action and be unable to decide alone on certain activities. If we wanted to go to war or a major operation, we would have to do it in consultation with the US.”
In what appeared to be reference to Israel’s refusal to acknowledge whether or not it has nuclear weapons, Yadlin added, “The loss of ambiguity is also significant.”

Asked whether there would also be advantages to a defense agreement, Yadlin answered, “The major advantage of a defense treaty is the strengthening of deterrence. If a state or terror organization seeks to attack Israel, it would understand that this would involve a war with the US.”
However, he noted, because of “the special relationship between Israel and the US, the deterrence is already strong. There are strategic collaborations between the countries that contribute to deterrence, and the question is if a defense treaty will actually strengthen deterrence or if it will remain as it is.”

In addition, Yadlin said, there would be serious obligations to the US placed on Israel.

“If the United States requests aid, then Israel is obligated to come to its aid, and of course the reverse,” he explained. “It’s like a rental contract, you have to live up to it and pay the landlord, and we know that not everyone pays all the time.”

“It’s a contract with heavy obligations,” he asserted.

Referring to whether the US would even send troops to disputed areas such as the West Bank, Yadlin explained, “One of the problems is that Israel does not have permanent borders, and the US has not recognized the territories as part of Israel. It has recognized western Jerusalem, and the rest of the city is up for negotiation.”

“So the situation is extremely complicated, but at the fundamental level, [the US] is supposed to send [troops] if Israel requests it,” he said.

However, Yadlin said, “If Trump and Netanyahu succeed in reaching an agreement in a unique format that meets our limitations, it could be worth it. If the agreement isn’t directed toward all the Middle East states, but only, for example, toward Iran, then it could be that this is a process worth considering.”

“But in the end, a classic defense agreement is a process that is not recommended for Israel,” he concluded.

***https://www.algemeiner.com/2019/09/15/former-idf-intelligence-chief-on-us-israel-defense-treaty-security-establishment-has-always-decided-disadvantages-outweigh-advantages/?utm_content=news1&utm_medium=daily_email&utm_campaign=email&utm_source=internal/

Ray’s comment:

These things — as important as they are — are not really hard to figure out.  Ray addressed them head-on, in a light tone, during a 19-minute talk at the National Press Club on March 7, 2014 at the “National Summit to Reassess the U.S.-Israel ‘Special Relationship.’”  (See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-r97vxvl-MI .)

Several years before, during an unusual briefing orchestrated by House Judiciary Chair John Conyers on June 16, 2005, Ray had already ruffled feathers by suggesting that, since there is no U.S.-Israel mutual defense treaty, we all ought to stop calling Israel an “ally.” 

For a one-page retrospective 13 years after Ray’s National Press Club speech, including two instructive links, please go to “The Truth About Oil, Israel, and the Iraq War”
https://raymcgovern.com/2018/05/21/the-truth-about-oil-israel-the-iraq-war-15-years-later/ .

Or you can go straight to the C-span video.  
https://www.c-span.org/video/?187209-1/downing-street-minutes-pre-war-intelligence.

As indicated in the text of the retrospective mentioned above, the remarks Ray made at the Conyers briefing on Israel (plus oil and logistics) as drivers for the attack on Iraq are heard between hour/minute 1:43 and 1:46.

Ray on Fault Lines this morning, fielding questions about Houtis, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Israel, Pompeo, and Israeli influence on Trump — as well as John Brennan’s ace Kremlin spy “with access to Putin” — the “spy” who may be able to hammer the final nail into Brennan’s political coffin.
https://www.periscope.tv/stranahan/1kvJpRgdrmdKE
18 minutes

By Matt Taibbi, September 14, 2019
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/52262.htm
Matt Taibbi embeds a link to an earlier piece by Ray for background: DOJ Bloodhounds on the Scent of John Brennan : 
https://raymcgovern.com/2019/06/13/doj-bloodhounds-on-the-scent-of-john-brennan/
Taibbi also sends up a red flag about Brennans star source, quoting Ray: “… as McGovern told me this week, ‘They make stuff up all the time.’” 

By Scott Ritter, September 14, 2019
https://consortiumnews.com/2019/09/14/the-spy-who-failed/

By Ray McGovern

On “The Critical Hour” yesterday, Ray was asked to comment on the NYT’s latest attempt to exculpate former CIA Director John Brennan for making up stories about a CIA agent close to Russian President Vladimir Putin. (See:  https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/09/us/politics/cia-informant-russia.html .)  As Justice Department investigators (AND the NY Times) well know, Brennan was the “brains” (not sure this the right term) behind the yarn that Putin himself ordered that the Democratic National Committee be hacked.
https://sputniknews.com/radio_the_critical_hour/201909111076772301-trumps-third-national-security-adviser-bites-the-dust-bolton-is-out-whats-next/Ray’s interview runs from minute 26:40 to 41:15, ending with some comments on the just announced firing of John Bolton.

Ray welcomed the opportunity to put the latest NY Times report in context and try to explain why it is doing its best to help miscreants like Brennan and his parters-in-distortion.  It was a rare chance to explain what actually happened and to show that, even though NYT Executive Editor Dean Baquet has told his minions to STOP ALREADY with their miserable performance on Russiagate, they seem unaable to do so. [See: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/new-york-times-chief-outlines-coverage-shift-from-trump-russia-to-trump-racism ]. 

If ever a deus ex machina were needed, former CIA Director John Brennan desperately needs one now.  [ See:  
https://consortiumnews.com/2019/06/13/ray-mcgovern-doj-bloodhounds-on-the-scent-of-john-brennan/ .]

And (honor among thieves?) the NY Times remains hell bent on helping Brennan, who had been their most lucrative Russiagate source.  Read this again and weep: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/09/us/politics/cia-informant-russia.html

Brennan told everyone — and even the not-so-usually-gullible strove mightily to believe him — that the CIA had a very sensitive source with direct access to Russian President Vladimir Putin. And that is why the rump intelligence agency group of CIA, FBI, and NSA were able to “assess” that “Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election. Russia’s goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency.”

See: “Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections:,  6 January 2017
https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf ,
and Ray’s two-year-later commentary: [ https://consortiumnews.com/2019/01/07/a-look-back-at-clappers-jan-2017-assessment-on-russia-gate/  ].
As for the media, so much is at stake that, even though top executives like Dean Baquet see the futility of doubling down on Russiagate, TV and print pundits, sadly, are unlikely — EVER — to acknowledge they got Russiagate dead wrong.  After all, many of the same ones got away with misfeasance/malfeasance on WMD in Iraq and (equally non-existent) ties between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda.  So why not now?

Brennan is scared
https://consortiumnews.com/2019/06/13/ray-mcgovern-doj-bloodhounds-on-the-scent-of-john-brennan/

His go-to media friends like NYT’s Sagner trying to bail him out
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/09/us/politics/cia-informant-russia.html

Sanger earned his chops reporting Iraqi WMD as flat fact no fewer than 7 times in one article 8 months before attack on Iraq
https://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/29/world/us-exploring-baghdad-strike-as-iraq-option.html

It’s all about Israel.  The current danger is that Trump will countenance a skirmish with Iran, in order to help Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu do well enough in the Sept. 17 election to retain power and — not incidentally — stay out of jail.

This unique article published exactly six years ago, goes a long way toward explaining the stakes involved:

________________

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/06/world/middleeast/israel-backs-limited-strike-against-syria.html?pagewanted=all

Israel Backs Limited Strike Against Syria
By JODI RUDOREN
Published: September 5, 2013; printed as lede September 6, 2013 

JERUSALEM — President Obama’s position on Syria — punish President Bashar al-Assad for using chemical weapons without seeking to force him from power — has been called “half-pregnant” by critics at home and abroad who prefer a more decisive American intervention to end Syria’s civil war. 

But Mr. Obama’s limited strike proposal has one crucial foreign ally: Israel. 

Israeli officials have consistently made the case that enforcing Mr. Obama’s narrow “red line” on Syria is essential to halting the nuclear ambitions of Israel’s archenemy, Iran. More quietly, Israelis have increasingly argued that the best outcome for Syria’s two-and-a-half-year-old civil war, at least for the moment, is no outcome. 

For Jerusalem, the status quo, horrific as it may be from a humanitarian perspective, seems preferable to either a victory by Mr. Assad’s government and his Iranian backers or a strengthening of rebel groups, increasingly dominated by Sunni jihadis. 

“This is a playoff situation in which you need both teams to lose, but at least you don’t want one to win — we’ll settle for a tie,” said Alon Pinkas, a former Israeli consul general in New York. “Let them both bleed, hemorrhage to death: that’s the strategic thinking here. As long as this lingers, there’s no real threat from Syria.” 

The synergy between the Israeli and American positions, while not explicitly articulated by the leaders of either country, could be a critical source of support as Mr. Obama seeks Congressional approval for surgical strikes in Syria. Some Republicans have pushed him to intervene more assertively to tip the balance in the Syrian conflict, while other politicians from both parties are loath to involve the United States in another Middle Eastern conflict on any terms. 

But Israel’s national security concerns have broad, bipartisan support in Washington, and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the influential pro-Israel lobby in Washington, weighed in Tuesday in support of Mr. Obama’s approach. The group’s statement said nothing, however, about the preferred outcome of the civil war, instead saying that America must “send a forceful message” to Iran and Hezbollah and “take a firm stand that the world’s most dangerous regimes cannot obtain and use the most dangerous weapons.” 

After years of upheaval in the Middle East and tension between Mr. Obama and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel, the two leaders are now largely in sync on how to handle not just Syria, but also Egypt. Mr. Obama has not withheld American aid to Egypt after the military-backed ouster of the elected Islamist government, while Israel strongly backs the Egyptian military as a source of stability. 

On Syria, in fact, Israel pioneered the kind of limited strike Mr. Obama is now proposing: four times this year, it has bombed convoys of advanced weapons it suspected were being transferred to Hezbollah, the Lebanese Shiite militia that Israel considers a major threat. 

It has otherwise been content to watch the current stalemate in Syria pull in what it considers a range of enemies: not only the Syrian Army and Iran, but also Hezbollah, which has thousands of fighters engaged on the battlefronts in Syria, and Sunni Islamists aligned against them. 

Though Syria and Israel have technically been at war for more than 40 years, the conflict in Syria is now viewed mainly through the prism of Iran. A prolonged conflict is perceived as hurting Iran, which finances Mr. Assad’s war effort. Whether Mr. Obama follows through on his promise to retaliate for the use of chemical weapons is a test of his commitment, ultimately, to prevent an Iranian nuclear bomb — as long as the retaliation does not become a full-scale intervention in Syria. 

“If it’s Iran-first policy, then any diversion to Syria is not fruitful,” said Aluf Benn, editor of the Israeli newspaper Haaretz. “From the Israeli point of view, the worst scenario is mission-creep in Syria and America gets entangled in a third war in the Middle East, which paralyzes its ability to strike Iran and limits Israel’s ability to strike Iran as well.” 

This spring, when an Israeli official called for an international response to what he said were earlier Syrian chemical attacks, he was muzzled and reprimanded for appearing to pressure the White House. Now, said Eyal Zisser, a historian at Tel Aviv University who specializes in the region, “it’s clear that Israel does not want to appear as somebody that is pushing the United States for a deep involvement.” 

There are significant differences between Israel and the United States on Syria. There was widespread criticism here of Mr. Obama’s decision to delay responding to the chemical attack, with the quote “When you have to shoot, shoot, don’t talk” from “The Good, the Bad and the Ugly” becoming a common refrain. One Israeli dentist even took out a large newspaper ad promoting his implant services with a picture of Mr. Obama captioned, “He doesn’t have teeth?” 

There has also been a broader debate about how best to respond to the war in Syria. 

When the uprising began, many here saw Mr. Assad, who like his predecessor and father had maintained quiet on the border, as “the devil you know,” and therefore preferable to the rebels, some of whom were aligned with Al Qaeda or Sunni militants like the Palestinian Hamas faction. 

As the death toll has mounted, more Israelis joined a camp led by Amos Yadlin, a former head of Israeli military intelligence, who argues that the devil you know is, actually, a devil who should be ousted sooner rather than later. 

That split remains. But as hopes have dimmed for the emergence of a moderate, secular rebel force that might forge democratic change and even constructive dialogue with Israel, a third approach has gained traction: Let the bad guys burn themselves out. 

“The perpetuation of the conflict is absolutely serving Israel’s interest,” said Nathan Thrall, a Jerusalem-based analyst for the International Crisis Group. 

Tamara Cofman Wittes, director of the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution, was one of several experts who said this view differs from the callous “let them all kill each other” shrug popular here during the long-running Iran-Iraq war. Rather, Ms. Wittes said, the reasoning behind a strike that would not significantly change the Syrian landscape is that the West needs more time to prop up opposition forces it finds more palatable and prepare them for future governing. 

She cited dangers for Israel if the conflict continues to drag on, including more efforts to transfer advanced weapons to Hezbollah, instability in Lebanon and pressure on Jordan. 

Despite those threats, Matthew Levitt, who studies the region at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, said Jerusalem and Washington essentially agree that “right now, there’s no good way for this war to end.” 

Israeli leaders “want Assad to be punished; they’d like it to be punishing enough that it actually makes a difference in the war but not so much that it completely takes him out,” Mr. Levitt said. “The Israelis do not think the status quo is tenable either, but they think the status quo right now is better than the war ending tomorrow, because the war ending tomorrow could be much worse. There’s got to be a tomorrow, day-after plan.” 

[Emphasis in bold added.]

END of Rudoren article

________________

There is much more to this story, a pivotal juncture in Obama’s tenure when he refused to let himself be mousetrapped into open war in Syria, despite how cleverly the trap had been laid.  Years later, he admitted this himself.  Here’s most of “the rest of the story.”

https://consortiumnews.com/2016/08/31/when-putin-bailed-out-obama/
When Putin Bailed Out Obama
By Ray McGovern, August 31, 2016 …

… at the end of which is an embedded link to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wnITcUQiK1Y , Ray McGovern on Israel and the Middle East, a 30-minute interview that has drawn more than 150,000 views.  At minute 26:01, Ray recounts his (alas, very last) interview in the august precincts of CNN, Washington.  He could not resist the temptation to confront Paul Wolfowitz and Joe Lieberman as they bemoaned Obama’s “chickening-out” on Syria.

NYT conceals unanimous intel judgment Iran stopped working on nuclear weapon 16 yrs ago. In reprise of pre-Iraq-war propaganda, NYT’s Bergman & Mazzetti “forget” that point in “Secret History of the Push to Strike Iran” 
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/04/magazine/iran-strike-israel-america.html

See also:
https://consortiumnews.com/2018/08/01/vips-to-trump-intel-on-iran-could-be-catastrophic/

Escalating could be intended to involve the United States
By Philip Giraldi, September 3, 2019
http://www.unz.com/pgiraldi/israels-many-wars/

Excerpt:
“Israel has also confirmed that, during Syria’s civil war, it conducted hundreds of strikes against pro-Iranian militias and ammunition depots to prevent the transfer of missiles to Hezbollah in Lebanon.”

It has been six years since then NY Times Bureau Chief in Jerusalem, Jodi Rudoren, had a strikingly candid lede article on page 1 of the Times (on September 6, 2013), quoting senior Israeli officials admitting that their “preferred outcome” in the armed hostilities in Syria was “no outcome.”
Among other advantages Israel saw in encouraging more open U.S. military involvement in Syria, was the fact that, with chaos in Syria, Israel was more easily able to disrupt the supply of arms to Hezbollah.

Rudoren’s article was extraordinarily candid.  “Israel Backs Limited Strike Against Syria” is worth a re-read.
https://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/06/world/middleeast/israel-backs-limited-strike-against-syria.html

Relevant readings collected by Ray, with a few comments
__________________

Hurricane Comey Was a National Disaster 
The bureaucratic rules he flouted are designed to protect the country from people like the FBI chief
By Holman W. Jenkins, Jr., Aug. 30, 2019
https://www.wsj.com/articles/hurricane-comey-was-a-national-disaster-11567201465?shareToken=st9f1cee65696d435996e4a6fd46f5ed92&reflink=article_email_share
____________________

Comey’s classified misconduct and the media’s flawed coverage of it
By John Solomon, opinion contributor — 08/30/19 06:00 PM EDT
https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/459472-comeys-classified-misconduct-and-the-medias-flawed-coverage-of-it
________________

The worst is still to come for Jim Comey
By Kevin R. Brock, August 30, 2019
https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/459379-the-worst-is-still-to-come-for-jim-comey
_______________

Jim Comey’s Higher Virtue
The righteous former FBI director thinks the rules don’t apply to him.
By The Wall Street Journal Editorial Board, Aug. 29, 2019
https://www.wsj.com/articles/jim-comeys-higher-virtue-11567121926?shareToken=st5be6bf7326284ff38bf74cdc8a6e9c13&reflink=article_email_share
_______________

Sneaky, Leaky James Comey 
The inspector general takes apart the former FBI director’s excuses for his actions.
By Kimberley A. Strassel, Aug. 29, 2019
https://www.wsj.com/articles/sneaky-leaky-james-comey-11567121062?shareToken=st39beb6d86fb44e1fb3777b9168128700&reflink=article_email_share
______________

FBI Witnesses Said Comey’s Trump Briefing Was Meant To Collect Info For Russia Probe, Report Says
Chuck Ross, August 29, 2019
https://dailycaller.com/2019/08/29/fbi-comey-trump-briefing-dossier/
__________________

What That Comey Email Report Really Says
By Benjamin Wittes August 29, 2019, 6:29 PM
https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-comey-email-report-really-says
____________________

Good for “Lawfare’s” Benjamin Wittes for chiming in with an Apologia for Vita Comey.  But this time, among informed commentators, Wittes seems to be out in left, or right, field.
________________

And this just in: Turns out Comey is a Whistleblower!

James Comey, Whistleblower
by Melvin Goodman, September 2, 2019
https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/09/02/james-comey-whistleblower/
______________

Comment:

The die is being cast — slowly but surely — with some of the reaction/commentary a bit surprising, given the relative success Comey enjoyed earlier in his charm offensive.

Will the corporate media rise to the occasion this time?  The incriminating data is out there and can be used, assuming cohones on the part of Attorney General William Barr and the President.  Most important: On deck and soon at bat are the perps of the FISA felony: Comey and McCabe from the FBI; Rosenstein, Yates, and Boente from DOJ.  Not to mention former CIA Director John Brennan.

The evidence abounds.  In a truly Justice system, they would be put on trial.  But don’t bet on it.  The odds remain formidable, and the problem of the Deep State hardly new.

Here’s Woodrow Wilson a century ago:

“Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the field of commerce and manufacture, are afraid of somebody, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it.”

And yet, the Wall Street Journal and The Hill seem to be managing, so far at least, to “speak above their breath” — at least over the Labor Day weekend.  We need to watch carefully for any change in their take or tone, once the muckety mucks get back form The Hamptons.