Main | Kamal -- Bin Laden's self-defeating jihad »

Neoconservatism and Espionage. AIPAC Spy Scandal: Crimes of the 'Clean
Break' Gang

Justin Raimondo, AntiWar

September 8, 2004 - These are bad times for Israeli spy operations. It
wasn't enough that the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) was
outed, last week, as a major supplier of U.S. secrets to Tel Aviv: on
Monday, Israel's spy satellite – meant to keep an eye on Iran's nuclear
ambitions – went kaput on lift-off. Measured in time, money, and diplomatic
blowback, the loss of the satellite is a hard blow to the Jewish state – but
the AIPAC affair could deliver a knockout punch to one of Washington's most
powerful, and feared, lobbying groups. Not only that, it could also destroy
the neoconservative wing of the Republican foreign policy establishment by
demonstrating, in a court of law, the key link between neoconservatism and
espionage.

Attempts to minimize the damage, mostly conducted in the pages of the
Jerusalem Post, and the New York Times – which has published "news" stories
on the subject consisting almost entirely of the neocons' outraged denials –
have so far downplayed the significance of the documents allegedly given to
AIPAC officials by Pentagon analyst Lawrence A. Franklin, and then passed on
to Israel. The Amen Corner always refers to a draft of a presidential
directive on Iran, and then goes on to scoff at the seriousness of the
alleged transmission: everybody does it, goes the argument, and what are
some "draft" policy papers between such good friends? No notice is ever
taken of the "other documents" frequently mentioned, albeit in passing, in
various news accounts. But what are we talking about, here: secret codes?
the names of American agents abroad? America's war plans in Iraq? It could
be any or all of the above.

Also ignored is the timeline of the investigation: top administration
officials, including national security advisor Condoleezza Rice, were
reportedly briefed on the inquiry in 2001, shortly after Bush was sworn into
office. In order to carry on the kind of surveillance FBI agents were
conducting, they had to go to a special judge sitting in a special court and
give some indication that the nation's national interests were seriously at
risk – and, remember, this was conceivably before the "Patriot" Act was
passed, when a higher standard of probable cause was the rule.

This is quickly burgeoning into a spy scandal that goes far beyond the
activities of Franklin. The investigation, if it isn't murdered in its crib
by a Republican hack prosecutor , will dwarf the infamous Jonathan Pollard
spy case in terms of sheer scope – and the damage done to America's national
security.

Just how deep the investigation into Israel's spy operations in the U.S.
goes is indicated in a recent piece by Jason Vest and Laura Rozen, in The
American Prospect, which describes the FBI's recent visit to Stephen Green,
an expert on Israeli-American relations:

"As Green spoke with investigators, he realized the agents were
investigating far more than Franklin.

'Larry Franklin's name never came up, but several others did,' he said."

The FBI had sought out Franklin on account of a fascinating piece he'd
written in February, and published in Counterpunch, the excellent newsletter
put out by Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St. Clair, which detailed the
security problems encountered over the years by major neoconservative
figures such as Richard Perle, and his protégé, suspected Israeli mole Dr.
Stephen Bryen, as well as the self-styled Machiavellian Michael Ledeen, and
– higher on the totem pole – deputy defense secretary Paul Wolfowitz, who,
in 1978, was the subject of an investigation into whether he gave classified
documents on the sale of U.S. weapons to an Arab government to an AIPAC
conduit, who then passed them on to Israel.

The Bryen and Wolfowitz investigations were quietly dropped, along with a
similar inquiry into the loyalties of Douglas Feith, a hard-line
neoconservative comrade and currently the head of the Pentagon's policy
shop, where Franklin works. In 1972, as a Middle East analyst in the Near
East and South Asian Affairs section of the National Security Council, Feith
was fired because, as Green put it,

"He'd been the object of an inquiry into whether he'd provided classified
material to an official of the Israeli Embassy in Washington. The FBI had
opened the inquiry."

According to Green, his visitors "were extraordinarily well-informed" and
very focused:

"It was apparent they've been at this for awhile, I asked them if there was
a current reason for them asking questions about things that go back over 30
years, and they sort of looked at each other and said, 'Yes, it's a present
issue,' but wouldn't say specifically what. Though they did ask very
specific questions about one individual in particular."

Ledeen's Israeli connection, as the chief go-between with Israel in the
Iran-Contra affair, is well-known, but his storied history didn't prevent
employment as a "consultant" to the Office of Special Plans.

Vest and Rozen report that the agents never brought up Franklin's name: they
wanted to know about Wolfowitz, Perle, Feith, Ledeen, and Bryen. Another
node of interest: the Pentagon's "Office of Special Plans," which is widely
credited with funneling enough phony "intelligence" into the White House to
expose its occupant to the charge of being a world-class liar. "The only
name that didn't come up was Larry Franklin," avers Green.

If the antecedents of AIPAC-gate can be traced back across a span of some 25
years or so, then our sense of deja-vu is further heightened by the
circumstances in which Franklin was caught red-handed trying to hand over
classified documents to Israeli agents in the presence of an AIPAC employee.
As part of a larger investigation, the FBI was listening in on the
AIPAC-Mossad meeting at a Washington D.C. eatery when Franklin walked in on
the proceedings "out of the blue" with his awkward offer. Confronting
Franklin with the evidence of his treachery, the feds turned him and used
him to scope out the deep roots of Israel's secret underground in U.S.
policymaking circles.

The only difference with the Bryen case is that this AIPAC-Mossad luncheon
was probably held at one of the Imperial capital's finer institutions of
higher dining, the kind frequented by Gucci-wearing Washington lobbyists and
the higher-priced politicians. In 1978, Bryen met his Mossad contacts at the
Madison Hotel Coffee Shop, where he was overheard – by Michael Saba –
offering classified documents to an Israeli Embassy official, Zvi Rafiah,
described by Green as the Mossad station chief in Washington. Green also
notes that Bryen would not agree to take a polygraph test, but Saba readily
agreed and passed with flying colors.

The sense of deja-vu gets stronger as we contemplate the first indications
that the investigation is being killed. As Saba puts it:

"In 1978, the conversation that I overheard in the restaurant and the
subsequent reporting of what was said to the FBI, led to an investigation of
that government employee, Stephen Bryen, and a recommendation from the FBI
investigators that the matter be brought before a grand jury with charges of
espionage for Israel. That case was then mysteriously dropped."

The agents doing the field work on the Franklin investigation were
reportedly eager to make arrests, but were stopped by Attorney General John
Ashcroft, who put GOP hack Paul McNulty in charge of the case: McNulty moved
quickly to nix the plan to go to a grand jury or file a complaint.
Apparently, he'll go after such national scourges as OxyContin before he'll
lift a finger to go after spies. But the investigation continues, and, given
the latest developments, it looks like the bloodhounds have picked up the
scent of treason and are relentlessly following it to the source. The
Washington Post reports:

"FBI counterintelligence investigators have in recent weeks questioned
current and former U.S. officials about whether a small group of Iran
specialists at the Pentagon and in Vice President Cheney's office may have
been involved in passing classified information to an Iraqi politician or a
U.S. lobbying group allied with Israel, according to sources familiar with
or involved in the case. In their interviews, the FBI agents have also named
two Israeli diplomats stationed in Washington and asked whether they would
be willing recipients of sensitive intelligence, the sources added."

The Defense Policy Board – until recently chaired by accused thief and
neocon guru Richard Perle – and the office of Dick Cheney are also being
scrutinized for evidence of penetration by Israel's fifth column. David
Wurmser, a prominent neoconservative writer and publicist, a specialist on
Iran who serves as Cheney's principal deputy assistant for national security
affairs, is also of interest to investigators. The Post reports:

"'The initial interest was: Do you believe certain people would spy for
Israel and pass secret information?' said one source interviewed by the FBI
about the defense officials."

The Post also notes that the suspects in this case "have strong ties to
Israel," including, in the case of Wurmser, Feith, and Perle, joint
authorship of a 1996 policy paper for then-Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin
Netanyahu, "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm," that
called for regime change not only in Iraq but throughout the Middle East.
The idea, back then, was that Israel would accomplish this, all on its own.
Over the years, however, the plan apparently evolved: instead of Israel
accomplishing a regional transformation all by its lonesome, Tel Aviv would
manipulate Washington into paying the price in treasure and casualties. The
Clean Breakers were instrumental in helping to bring this about. But did
they also commit acts of espionage in the process?

If so, then their policy prescriptions will be seen in a new light. Why did
the Wolfowitz-Perle-Feith Axis of Israel inside the Pentagon argue so
consistently and relentlessly for a policy of "Iraq, Delenda Est"? As of
this moment, 1001 American soldiers have been killed in Iraq so far. What
did they die for? As I put it in an op ed published in USA Today, in
February of last year ( http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/20
03-03-17-oppose_x.htm ):

"Our troops will be fighting a proxy war in Iraq, and beyond, not to protect
U.S. citizens from terrorist attacks, but to make the world safe for Israel.
When the dead are buried, let the following be inscribed on their
tombstones: They died for Ariel Sharon."

The neocons' defenders characterize the investigation as a case of political
persecution, an act of factional warfare carried out by the CIA and the
Brent Scowcroft-Republican realists against their neoconservative rivals.
But the Clean Break Gang and their willing accomplices did more than just
argue on behalf of Israel's cause. If the scope of the present investigation
into AIPAC is any indication, over a period of many years the Clean Breakers
acted like a coherent and disciplined cell, implanted in the very heart of
the U.S. government. Stealing our secrets and feeding us lies, this cabal
operated a two-way transmission belt of treason – subverting our efforts to
go after the real perpetrators of the 9/11 terrorist attacks and diverting
attention and resources to the war against Israel's enemies, the Ba'athist
regimes in Baghdad and Damascus, and the mullahs of Teheran.

While the neocons appear to have been given a platform by that bastion of
liberalism, the New York Times, to give their defense in the framework of
"news" articles that impart very little new information, the usual suspects
have not been heard to defend AIPAC too loudly. Michael Ledeen is his usual
voluble self, demanding to know why, if the charges have any substance, they
haven't arrested anyone. Does this mean he'll join with Rep. John Conyers,
who has called for McNulty to be taken off the case, so we can finally see
somebody in handcuffs? Conyers has suggested handing it over to the
prosecutors in the Valerie Plame case, head up by Patrick J. "Bulldog"
Fitzgerald. That way, the accused will have their day in court, and the
neocons will be blessed with what every political movement of any
consequence eventually acquires: an ample supply of martyrs.

Aside from Ledeen, however, and pro-forma denials by the Israelis and AIPAC,
the response to the AIPAC espionage caper on the part of Israel's most
vehement champions – a numerous crew of ordinarily loquacious pundits, such
as Charles Krauthammer, George Will, and Clifford May, etc. – has been an
uncharacteristic silence. Bill Safire managed to get off one very weak
volley, in the context of a column in the Sunday Times about the election:

"Retiring Senator Bob Graham, whose failure to dissociate himself from Pat
Buchanan's anti-Israel screed on 'Meet the Press' yesterday will not help
Democrats in Florida, complains that Kerry's campaign is 'still a little out
of focus.'"

But Buchanan did not engage in any sort of "screed," "anti-Israel" or
otherwise. Here is what he said:

"We also need to investigate whether there is a nest of Pollardites in the
Pentagon who have been transmitting American secrets through AIPAC, the
Israeli lobby, over to Reno Road, the Israeli embassy, to be transferred to
Mr. Sharon. Now, I did not know until this weekend's stories in The
Washington Post that this is exactly what is being talked about; that
certain individuals over there in Mr. Feith's shop or beneath him have been
transmitting these secrets.

"Now, the FBI have been asking questions. There are no conclusions. No one
should assume guilt on anyone's part. But if this has been going on, Tim, we
are getting dangerously close to the T-word. And I would urge the president
of the United States to get out in front of this, to take this investigation
away from Mr. McNulty and give it to Patrick Fitzgerald and let them look
into it because if the president can – I'm sure the president has no
involvement in this. But questions have been raised, and this is not
something on the Internet. This is The Washington Post doing this, moving
all this around, and so I think there clearly needs to be an investigation."

All I know is what I read in the papers: "No one should assume guilt on
anyone's part." This is an "anti-Israel screed" only in the upside down
world of Bizarro Bill Safire.

By giving the Clean Break Gang the benefit of a doubt Pat is being generous
to a fault: given their record, and the circumstantial evidence gathered so
far, they hardly deserve it.

On the same program, Newt Gingrich defended the neocons, if you call this a
defense:

"I think that it is very worrisome that some security people, whether
they're at the CIA or the FBI, are trying to destroy careers by leaking to
the press allegations that are untrue. You may have just noticed, by the
way, that Ahmed Chalabi, after a six-month campaign by Ambassador Bremer and
the Coalition Provisional Authority, Ahmed Chalabi was just cleared,
something which didn't get quite the same coverage as all of the vicious and
dishonest charges.

"Now, if what we're seeing is a strategy of smearing people out of public
life by using the FBI and the CIA, I think that's something the Congress
should investigate. If somebody's guilty, fine, arrest them, indict them,
convict them. But to have people who are supposed to be in charge of
security out smearing people, I think makes one worry about the protection
of individual liberty and the protection of individual innocence in this
society."

But the publicity surrounding the investigation was not a plus for the
investigators, as the Post reports:

"Several law enforcement officials have said in recent days that the FBI had
initially considered making rapid arrests in the Franklin probe when it
became clear that news of the investigation was about to become public last
week. But, these officials said, prosecutors urged caution, arguing that
investigators needed more time to gather evidence and assess the case."

Whoever leaked this case wasn't rooting for the investigators, but was
alerting the other members of the spy nest, allowing them time to scurry to
safety – perhaps to Israel – and, in any case, cover their tracks. It was,
as Laura Rozen speculated, a "controlled burn," a preemptive strike designed
to obstruct and abort the ongoing investigation before arrests could be
made.

Gingrich doesn't answer any of the charges, he merely asserts they are
"untrue." But how does he know that? Does he have access to the wiretaps,
the surveillance records, the transcripts of bugged conversations between
AIPAC employees, Israeli embassy officials, and whomever, going back over
two years? The FBI does, and they must know something Gingrich doesn't know.
So this is not an honest response from Gingrich. The only really direct
response of any consequence, apart from "Well, why don't you arrest them,
then?", comes from errant paleoconservative John Derbyshire, commenting on
the National Review "blog":

"The paleocon websites – yep, you bet I read them – have been going nuts
over this story of an Israeli spy in the DoD.

"This strikes me as disingenuous. I have always assumed that every country –
including friendly ones – spies on the US govt to whatever degree it can get
away with. The value-added of having some advance, unauthorized insight into
US govt policy discussions is tremendous. Foreign governments, friendly or
otherwise, would be fools not to do all they can to get insights into US
policy. "

Here is someone who thinks other countries would be "fools" not to engage in
espionage against the United States. Isn't there something on the
citizenship application form about approving of treason? It's amazing that
they let Derbyshire, an immigrant from Britain, into the country, let alone
making him a citizen.

As a writer for a magazine that smeared several prominent antiwar
conservatives and libertarians, including Buchanan, Robert Novak, and Lew
Rockwell – as well as a few minor ones, including myself – as "Unpatriotic
Conservatives," the statement that the activities of the AIPAC cabal amount
to "having some advance, unauthorized insight into US government policy
discussions" is … breathtaking.

If he were elected Prime Minister of somewhere-or-other, Derbyshire breezily
assures us, he would immediately expand his country's program of spying on
the United States, and would be "furious" if one were not already in place.
He gives voice to the hard-core Likudnik view of America's relationship with
Israel, while supposedly conveying an ostensibly neutral value-free stance:

"For Israel, whose actual existence as a nation might depend on US policy
(as in fact it did in 1973), there is no excuse at all not to spy on the US.
An Israeli government that did not spy on the US would be in very serious
dereliction of its duty towards its citizens."

Translated into colloquial American, this means: Screw the U.S. We'll spy on
them if we must, and we'll be the proper judges of that. Every country
pursues its own interests. But the only problem is that Israel's supporters
have made the point, over and over again post-9/11, that the interests of
Israel and the U.S. are identical. AIPAC-gate proves that this is a lie:
Israel treats its main benefactor – and practically its lone friend in the
world – as if it were a mortal enemy. But then again, given Derbyshire's
recognition that we hold Israel's life in our hands, this hostility is
understandable: such an over-dependence can only breed resentment, contempt,
and, inevitably, a sense of betrayal. No matter how much aid we give, and
how unconditional our support, it's never enough: not enough to stave off
the rising tide of Arab nationalism, not to mention the demographic tide
rising to engulf the Jewish state in an Arab sea.

So what should we do? According to Derbyshire:

"Of course, if we catch someone spying for a foreign power – whether
friendly or not – we should throw the book at him. We are entitled to do
everything we can to protect our national secrets, and need not apologize to
anyone for that. But that is just the other side of the game.

"To throw up your hands in horror on learning that some friendly country is
spying on the US is preposterous. Unless, of course, you have a heavy
emotional investment in the notion that lots of very senior administration
officials owe their true primary allegiance to that country..."

A "friendly country"? A country that not only spied on us, but also set up a
covert intelligence cell within the highest councils of the U.S. Government
and colluded with them to lie us into war – this is a friendly country? This
is precisely what the British did during World War II, as Thomas E. Mahl,
author of Desperate Deception: British Covert Operations in the United
States, 1939-44, documents, but as an American citizen, albeit of British
ancestry, and a conservative to boot, no doubt Derbyshire doesn't approve of
that. Although one could understand why he might: but why make the same sort
of exception for Israel? Just asking.

A country that passed secrets to Iran, via its agents, Chalabi and AIPAC,
endangering American lives on the battlefields of Iraq – what kind of
"friendship" is that?

Horror is the proper response to treason of this kind, and the only sort of
"emotional investment" required is an emotional attachment to one's own
country, as well as an abiding concern for its security in this, the age of
terrorism. Furthermore, it is absurd to speculate on subjective
interpretations of to whom or what the traitors in our midst felt
allegiance. We cannot know what they felt, only what they did. Whether the
spying for Israel was done to advance the neoconservative cult of power, or
the cult was a front for Israeli interests pure and simple, is a question
one must leave to future scholars of the subject. Just as academic
specialists ponder the question of what motivated Alger Hiss, and wonder who
promoted Peress, tomorrow's AIPAC-ologists will debate the point raised by
Derbyshire, which is interesting – but irrelevant to our purposes.

What matters to us here at Antiwar.com, and the reason we've been covering
this story so comprehensively, is that it validates what we have been saying
all along about the neocons, and Israel's operational role in the propaganda
campaign that led to the invasion of Iraq. AIPAC-gate further delegitimizes
an already unpopular war, and could help block the War Party's moves to
incite more armed conflicts throughout the region. Before we resolve,
finally, to get out of Iraq, and out of the Middle East, where we never
belonged in the first place, we're going to have to fully comprehend and
appreciate the key link between neoconservatism and espionage.

The whole neoconservative movement is an act of subversion: of our
republican virtues, of the moral character of our people (see Abu Ghraib),
and the conservative movement itself. That top neocons in government have
been exposed as foreign agents only confirms that their agenda of "national
greatness," neo-imperialism, and perpetual war is un-American
through-and-through and to the core.

It also confirms our worst suspicions about the "mainstream" conservatives
over at National Review, including Derbyshire: that they all too often act
as fellow travelers in treason, excusing and exculpating the worst excesses
of Israel's lobby in America, while offering the neocons a platform to slime
true conservatives and principled libertarians of the right.

As Ledeen conducts seances in the pages of National Review, complaining to
the mad ghost of James Jesus Angleton that Israel's spy nest is being
subjected to the tortures of "McCarthyism," and David Frum denounces the
investigation as an anti-Semitic plot (presumably carried out by neo-Nazis
in the FBI), one has to ask: Why this knee-jerk anti-American response to
the actions of our government, which, after all, is only trying to protect
us?

Who are the "unpatriotic conservatives" now?

And it isn't just the conservatives. While The Hill newspaper reports that
Rep. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), House majority whip, has announced that the House
"probe" of AIPAC-gate will start "with a record of confidence" in AIPAC,
House Democratic whip Nancy Pelosi (D-Ca.), gave a statement that echoes the
worst excuse-making of Ledeen, Frum, and her old adversary Gingrich:

"AIPAC has played a pivotal role in ensuring the strength of the special
relationship between the United States and Israel," she said. "AIPAC is a
dedicated advocate for Israel, educating our nation's leaders about
opportunities to assist our democratic ally in the Middle East. I am proud
to have worked closely with AIPAC and its leaders to support Israel as it
works to defeat terrorism and strives toward a just and lasting peace."

This craven catering to a group that has effectively acted as a fifth
column, and stands credibly accused of being an accomplice to crimes
including espionage, is an outrage. What's even worse: AIPAC activists are
flooding the Congress with calls, and letters, in a massive campaign to drop
the charges, obstruct justice, and engage in damage control. The problem is
that damage to American interests is not their concern: it's all about
Israel.

When both parties are complicit with treason, what is to be done? Thank god
for Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich), who seems to be one of the few true patriots
left in Congress, who is calling attention to the possibility of a
cover-up.. The people must rise up and act if this treason is to be ended.

We can stop the cover-up, but only if we act now. Get on the horn and call
your congressional representatives: your two Senators as well as the member
of the House from your congressional district.

Let it not be said that, when it came time to speak up, and defend the
country from treason only traitors could find words to defend their
co-conspirators. Call, write, and make your voice heard. And be polite.
Simply ask why the investigation seems to have been hampered, not helped, by
the intervention of John Ashcroft. And ask why is it that Israel is given
the sort of leeway that no country can afford to give another – without
necessarily answering your own question. Be polite, but, by all means, feel
free to point out that if the "A" in AIPAC stood for Arab, one wonders if
members of Congress would be so quick to give a group of accused spies their
imprimatur.

http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=3521