Joined: 10 Dec 2005 Posts: 2017 Location: Croydon, Surrey
Posted: Fri Aug 11, 2006 8:18 am Post subject: The Oded Yinon Plan for Greater Israel by Nafeez Ahmed
The Four-Frontal War: Covert Operations Escalate in Middle East and the Horn of Africa Civil War Looms in Iraq
http://nafeez.blogspot.com/2006/08/four-frontal-war-covert-operations. html
"US Generals forsee Iraqi partition" was the unnerving headline penned by Guardian journalists Julian Borger, Ewen MacAskill and Richard Norton Taylor yesterday. They quote the leaked memo to Prime Minister Tony Blair written by William Patey, Britain's outgoing Ammbassador to Iraq, which revealed that "a low intensity civil war and a de facto division of Iraq" is currently more probable than the stabilization of the country. His comments were shockingly confirmed by General John Abizaid, the head of US Central Command, and General Peter Pace, the Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, both of whom warned of the imminent probability of Iraq's slide to civil war.
While the media debate has shifted onto whether or not a civil war is imminent in Iraq -- and it's obvious from the comments of the above informed observers that it is -- unnnoticed and barely reported is the compelling evidence that some sectarian violence has been deliberately fostered and orchestrated by US and British military intelligence. When Iraqi police found "explosives and a remote-control detonator... in the car of the two SAS special forces men" disguised as Arabs, last year in September, veteran war correspondent John Pilger in the New Statesman was one of the few to note the odd details. "What were they planning to do...?" with the explosives, he wondered: "Although reported initially by the Times and the Mail, all mention of the explosives allegedly found in the SAS men's unmarked Cressida vanished from the news. ... the SAS men, disguised as al-Sadr's followers, were planning an attack on Basra ahead of an important religious festival."
Orchestrating the Terrorist Insurgency?
I had written in some detail about this event at the time last year -- the only news outlet that would touch the story was the progressive online newsmagazine Raw Story. But this was not the only event suggesting that American and British military intelligence operatives have been playing a double-game in Iraq. Iraqi nuclear scientist Dr. Imad Khudduri, who worked with the Iraqi Atomic Energy Commission from 1968 to 1998 when he left the country, reports that a driver in Baghdad had his license confiscated by US army officers at a check-point. They told him "to report to an American military camp near Baghdad airport for interrogation" to retrieve his license. When he got to the camp, he was questioned for 30 min before being released. As for his license, the US army officers told him it had been sent for processing to al-Khadimiya police station, where he had to hurry to pick it up before the responsible officer left his shift. "The driver did leave in a hurry, but was soon alarmed with a feeling that his car was driving as if carrying a heavy load", reports Dr. Khudduri.
"... he also became suspicious of a low flying helicopter that kept hovering overhead, as if trailing him. He stopped the car and inspected it carefully. He found nearly 100 kilograms of explosives hidden in the back seat and along the two back doors. The only feasible explanation for this incident is that the car was indeed booby trapped by the Americans and intended for the al-Khadimiya Shiite district of Baghdad. The helicopter was monitoring his movement and witnessing the anticipated ‘hideous attack by foreign elements’.
"The same scenario was repeated in Mosul, in the north of Iraq. A car was confiscated along with the driver’s license. He did follow up on the matter and finally reclaimed his car but was told to go to a police station to reclaim his license. Fortunately for him, the car broke down on the way to the police station. The inspecting car mechanic discovered that the spare tire was fully laden with explosives."
Going back to my own research on this, in my Raw Story report just under a year ago, I noted two important points:
1. Press reports as well as official statements from al-Qaeda in Iraq suggested that al-Qaeda had teamed up with Saddam Hussein's old Ba'ath Party loyalists. Iraqi intelligence and US military officials have known for years that al-Qaeda operatives from outside Iraq had "formed an alliance with former intelligence agents of Saddam Hussein".
2. Pakistani military sources told the Asia Times in February 2005 that the US has "resolved to arm small militias backed by US troops and entrenched in the population," consisting of "former members of the Ba'ath Party". In other words, al-Qaeda's latest Ba'athist recruits undergoing what the London Times called "Al-Qaeda-style training, such as how to make remote-controlled bombs" were getting themselves "entrenched" in the civilian environment while also being covertly armed and supported by elements of the US military. The US had procured “Pakistan-manufactured weapons, including rifles, rocket-propelled grenade launchers, ammunition, rockets and other light weaponry.” A Pakistani military analyst noted that the “arms could not be destined for the Iraqi security forces because US arms would be given to them.” It is difficult to avoid the conclusions that US military intelligence has actively implemented a series of covert operations designed to manipulate and arm the terrorist insurgency, thus contributing to the deterioration of security.
Neo-Con Plan: The Dissolution of Iraq
But why? The dissolution of Iraq has long been an essential feature of hardline Israeli strategic thinking. In 1982, the Hebrew journal Kivunim -- the official organ of the World Zionist Organization -- published an article by former Israeli Foreign Ministry official Oded Yinon, who observed that:
"Iraq, rich in oil on the one hand and internally torn on the other, is guaranteed as a candidate for Israel’s targets. Its dissolution is even more important for us than that of Syria... In the short run it is Iraqi power which constitutes the greatest threat to Israel... Every kind of inter-Arab confrontation will assist us in the short run and will shorten the way to the more important aim of breaking up Iraq into denominations as in Syria and in Lebanon. In Iraq, a division into provinces along ethnic/religious lines as in Syria during Ottoman times is possible. So, three (or more) states will exist around the three major cities: Basra, Baghdad and Mosul, and Shi’ite areas in the south will separate from the Sunni and Kurdish north."
The fragmentation of Iraq, in other words, is an integral part of Zionist grand strategy, a strategy that is staunchly supported by the neoconservatives in the White House.
Sources close to the incumbent Iraqi government fear that the drastic deterioration of security in Iraq will be exploited by the Anglo-American coalition to dissolve the fragile parliament and declare a state of emergency, thus permanently sealing the occupation. It is difficult to discern whether this specific scenario is plausible, but there can be no doubt that policymakers in Washington and London want to manipulate the situation to ensure long-term control over Iraqi oil reserves.
Nuclear-ization of Mid-East War
As covert operations to fracture Iraq are escalating, the humanitarian crisis in Lebanon is deepening. Evidence mounts that Israel is planning a wider regional war using nuclear weapons. As ceasefire negotiations continued last week, the Israeli Committee for a Middle East Free from Atomic, Biological & Chemical Weapons reported (5.8.06) that:
"The Government of Israel has recently purchased from the United States bunker-busting bombs (GBU-2, for use in its war in Lebanon. These bombs contain depleted uranium -- a carcinogenic substance that spreads in the form of a toxic and radioactive dust, which enters the lungs and bones and is especially harmful to babies and young children."
The invention of bunker-busting bombs are a brazen attempt to make nuclear devices a viable weapons of warfare without automatically implying Mutually Assured Destruction. In late May 2003, at President Bush’s insistence, Congress voted to end the 10-year ban on the development of tactical nuclear weapons -- also known as ‘mini-nukes’ or 'bunker-busting' bombs - that range up to a third the size of the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima in 1945. The new nuclear devices are designed to “produce small amounts of radiation, earth-penetrating weapons to attack underground bunkers, larger devices with greater radiation effects and weapons to destroy chemical and biological agents.” These measures conflict with US treaty obligations -- the US is a signatory to both the comprehensive test ban treaty (although has not ratified it) and the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.
Despite being designed to concentrate the impact in order to limit the nuclear fallout to the intended target, tactical nuclear weapons remain extremely dangerous and inherently indiscriminate -- and of course far more devastating for civilian populations than conventional weapons. For example, according to Council on Foreign Relations scientist Robert Nelson in Physics Today, “anyone within the roughly 3W0.6 km2 area covered by the base surge would receive a fatal dose of radiation. (W is the explosive energy yield in kilotons of TNT.).” Estimating a typical third-world urban population density of 6000/km2, this implies that a single “1-kt weapon would kill tens of thousands”, whereas a single more powerful “100-kt weapon would kill hundreds of thousands of people.”
Nukes, in other words, are still nukes.
Have No Doubt: They Want War... on Four Fronts
Israeli's acquirement of tactical nuclear weapons within the last few days is therefore of urgent concern, and indicates that the regime is stepping-up its planning for an impending wider regional conflict. It must be remembered that Israel has long planned this war. The "clean break" strategy advocated a decade ago by Vice President Dick Cheney's Middle East adviser David Wurmser -- which "is progressing as planned" according to Pentagon whistleblower Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatowski PhD -- sees a conflict with Lebanon as an integral dimension of a war to expand Israeli influence over Syria and Iran: "An effective approach, and one with which American can sympathize, would be if Israel seized the strategic initiative along its northern borders by engaging Hizballah, Syria, and Iran, as the principal agents of aggression in Lebanon."
As the US, UK, and other powers scuttle around shouting for a ceasefire agreement, according to former senior advisor to President Clinton Sidney Blumenthal, neither the US nor Israel want peace:
"The National Security Agency is providing signal intelligence to Israel to monitor whether Syria and Iran are supplying new armaments to Hezbollah ... neoconservatives on Vice President Dick Cheney's national security staff and Elliott Abrams, the neoconservative senior director for the Near East on the National Security Council, are prime movers behind sharing NSA intelligence with Israel, and they have discussed Syrian and Iranian supply activities as a potential pretext for Israeli bombing of both countries... The neoconservatives are described as enthusiastic about the possibility of using NSA intelligence as a lever to widen the conflict between Israel and Hezbollah and Israel and Hamas into a four-front war."
The ceasefire rhetoric is being used deliberately by Anglo-American and Israeli officials to manufacture a justification for opening multiple theatres of war in the region. As Robert Fisk at the Independent observes, the draft resolution is absurdly pro-Israel, failing to even call on Israeli troops to withdraw from Lebanon, and guaranteed to be rejected by Hizbullah as merely an exercise in imperial hubris.
Carving Lebanon?
Meanwhile, US efforts are currently designed to facilitate the political divisions in Lebanon. While supporting Israel's invasion of Lebanon, and condemning Hizbullah's resistance, the Bush administration is simultaneously planning "to help train and equip the Lebanese army so it can take control of all of the nation's territory". The plan is motivated by Hizbollah's growing popularity as the only force in Lebanon capable of attempting to defend its people.
Indeed, the strategic planning behind the "clean break" onslaught now in motion was already in place in the 1980s and is mentioned in the Kivunim article cited previously, which advises that: "Lebanon’s total dissolution into five provinces serves as a precedent for the entire Arab world including Egypt, Syria, Iraq and the Arabian peninsula and is already following that track." Moreover, this is part of a broader process of reconfiguration of the entire Middle East. "The entire Arabian peninsula is a natural candidate for dissolution due to internal and external pressures, and the matter is inevitable especially in Saudi Arabia", the article continues.
"Low Intensity Warfare" in Iran and Somalia
It should not come as a surprise then to learn that the War on Iran has, in fact, already begun -- as early as June 2005. Former US marine and chief UN weapons inspector in Iraq, Scott Ritter, revealed citing confidential sources secret US military flights in Iran “using pilotless drones and other, more sophisticated, capabilities.” The CIA’s Directorate of Operations was financing and directing the Mujahadeen el-Khalq (MEK), the notorious Iranian opposition group (formerly run by Saddam Hussein’s intelligence services) still categorized by the State Department as a “terrorist organization.” CIA-sponsored MEK terrorist operations currently include “remote bombings in Iran of the sort that the Bush administration condemns on a daily basis inside Iraq.” Additionally, the US military had prepared a base of operations in neighbouring Azerbaijan “for a massive military presence” designed to facilitate a “major land-based campaign” to conquer Tehran. CIA paramilitary operatives and US Special Operations units are training with Azerbaijan forces to form special units capable of “operating inside Iran for the purpose of intelligence gathering, direct action, and mobilizing indigenous opposition to the Mullahs in Tehran.”
Covert operations are escalating in other potentially oil-rich regions. In February this year, CIA planes reportedly "delivered large amounts of money and guns" to three warlords in Somalia who dominated Mogadishu. "They named themselves the Alliance for the Restoration of Peace and Counter-Terrorism" and began fighting against the Union of Islamic Courts (UIC), a loose legal federation of Somali clans supported "by local businessmen, to restore order by using religious law to settle disputes and punish criminals. Each clan's court has jurisdiction only over its own clan members, but it was a start on rebuilding a law-abiding society." The BBC describes the UIC as "a grassroots movement" which has "become increasingly popular among city residents and the business community desperate to see an end to the rule of the gun." An initiative that Washington was not happy with. In late July this year, the US "let Ethiopia send troops in to protect the isolated 'Interim Government' in Baidoa. That probably means renewed war, and across borders this time... Just when Somalia was about to escape from its long nightmare, a new and worse one has appeared: the prospect of a war that would consume the entire Horn of Africa."
Although Somali clan leaders have expressed the desire to cooperate with Washington's demands on alleged al-Qaeda terrorists, Washington suddenly seems less interested in tangible peaceful solutions. UIC clan elders reportedly "met with US Ambassador William Bellamy in Nairobi, Kenya and promised to cooperate in the hunt for al-Qaeda terrorists."
They even "signed an agreement with the US ambassador that if they tell us exactly where these men are in Somalia, our clan militia will go and capture them and turn them over." Since then, the US has been surprisingly silent about the location of the alleged terrorists -- but still wants to ignite a war that could engulf the whole Horn of Africa. A spokesperson for the US embassy had "no comment" on the meetings.
US interests in Somalia are rather familiar, and have remained much the same since the 1992 Bush Snr. invasion called "Operation Restore Hope". At that time the Los Angeles Times revealed: “Far beneath the surface of the tragic drama of Somalia, four major US oil companies are quietly sitting on a prospective fortune in exclusive concessions to explore and exploit tens of millions of acres of the Somali countryside. That land, in the opinion of geologists and industry sources, could yield significant amounts of oil and natural gas if the US led military mission can restore peace to the impoverished East African nation.” As the Independent adds, "The oil giants’ exclusive concessions to explore and drill [are] worthless in the absence of a viable government to enforce their claims.” The UIC, as an increasingly popular, largely Islamic Sufi federation, fundamentally threatens to permanently prevent the retrieval of these exclusive concessions to US oil corporations.
Concluding Comment
It seems that the War Machine is now in full-swing. US covert operations to control strategic resources are exploding in Iraq, Iran and Somalia. Western diplomatic, military, intelligence and financial maneuverings are carefully positioning Israeli policy to fracture the conflict with Lebanon in a conflict on four (or more) fronts. Tactical nukes are being prepared for imminent use, increasing the probability of a full-scale regional conflagaration.
Meanwhile, Dick Cheney is still hiding somewhere in his bunker, and Western leaders continue to promise us that they only want peace.
“[The Yinon plan] is an Israeli strategic plan to ensure Israeli regional superiority. It insists and stipulates that Israel must reconfigure its geo-political environment through the balkanization of the surrounding Arab states into smaller and weaker states.
Israeli strategists viewed Iraq as their biggest strategic challenge from an Arab state. This is why Iraq was outlined as the centerpiece to the balkanization of the Middle East and the Arab World. In Iraq, on the basis of the concepts of the Yinon Plan, Israeli strategists have called for the division of Iraq into a Kurdish state and two Arab states, one for Shiite Muslims and the other for Sunni Muslims. The first step towards establishing this was a war between Iraq and Iran, which the Yinon Plan discusses.
The Atlantic, in 2008, and the U.S. military’s Armed Forces Journal, in 2006, both published widely circulated maps that closely followed the outline of the Yinon Plan. Aside from a divided Iraq, which the Biden Plan also calls for, the Yinon Plan calls for a divided Lebanon, Egypt, and Syria. The partitioning of Iran, Turkey, Somalia, and Pakistan also all fall into line with these views. The Yinon Plan also calls for dissolution in North Africa and forecasts it as starting from Egypt and then spilling over into Sudan, Libya, and the rest of the region.
“We should prepare to go over to the offensive. Our aim is to smash Lebanon, Trans-Jordan, and Syria. The Weak point is Lebanon, for the Muslim regime is artificial and easy for us to undermine. We shall establish a Christian state there, and then we will smash the Arab legion, eliminate Trans-Jordan, and Syria will fall to us,” – David Ben-Gurion, the first prime minister of the Zionist entity – quoted in ‘Ben-Gurion, a Biography’ by Michael Ben-Zohar, 1948.
On October 13, Israeli legal group for the protection of country’s non-Jewish minorities, Adalah (Justic in Arabic) sent an open letter to the interior ministry complaining that Israeli undercover police officers, faking as Arabs, have been terrorising 1.3 million Arab Muslim and Christian minority under Tel Aviv’s rule.
Israeli Zionist thugs have used every trick in the crime world to create many False-Flag Operations – for which they blamed Muslims with the help of their controlled mass-media. The Israel Occupation Force (IOF) have several military intelligence and sabator cells attacked to it. The most deadly among them is Sayeret Mat’kal (The Unit), which has been involved in the assassination of anti-Zionist regime leadership both inside and outside the occupied Palestine. This unit was created in 1957 and one of its specialty is its agents work in disguise by donning Arab garbs (known in Hebrew as Mista’aravim). The former Israeli prime minister and current defense minister Ehud Barak joined the group in 1959 and became its second chief by replacing Lt. Meir Har-Zion. In 1973, Israel’s “Spring of Youth Operation” conducted by the IOF, Ehud Barak dressed as an Arab woman conducting death squad hits. Mista’aravim provocateurs camouflaged as Palestinians are still used in the West Bank and Iraq. Jane’s Foreign Report said Mossad’s Gen. Meir Dagan had advised US officials in September 2002 on how Israeli special ops could help the US war effort in Iraq. Mista’aravim methods were exemplified in Basra where British SAS troops dressed as Arabs in a vehicle loaded with explosives were seized before detonating a car bomb. According to Israeli intelligence expert Ephraim Kahana, Sayaret Matkal is modeled on Britain’s SAS. The group was involved in the assassination of former Lebanese prime minister Rafiq Hariri and unsuccessful attempt on Hizb’Allah leader Sheikh Nasrallah.
These Jewish saboteurs usualy infiltrate into peaceful protest rallies and incite some protesters to become violent. They played this trick during Palestinian protest at Bilin village. When some protesters started throwing rocks at the IOF soldiers – these saboteurs turned around and started shooting at the protestors. They joined the anti-Opposition (lead by Hizb’Allah) election rallies in Lebanon and were spotted at Tehran’s Green Revolution rallies against Dr. Ahmadinejad’s landslide victory in June 2009 election.
When it comes to Zionist-regime’s interests – the Israeli terrorists have not spared the American, whose government has shielded the Zionist entity for the last 60 years – pumping more than 3,000 billion dollars into Israeli bottomless pit. On December 13, 2001 – the Executive Intelligence Review reported that there is a growing suspicion among US government law and intelligencies that Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon has dispatched special operations teams into North America. On June 2, 2003 – Laura Knight-Jadczyk posted a detailed account of Israeli involvement in 9/11 – from those five Israeli ‘dancing idiots’ to Mossad’s list of 19 Muslim hijackers.
Jonathan Cook in his latest article Israeli police don Arab disguise, exposes these coward Zionist Jews.
Secret agents disguised as Arabs – known in Hebrew as “mista’aravim” – were used before Israel’s founding. Jews, usually recruited from Arab countries, went undercover in neighbouring states to collect intelligence.
Last week Jamal Zahalka, an Arab member of the parliament, warned other legislators of the danger that mista’aravim police officers would adopt similar tactics: “Such a unit will carry out provocations, in which the Arab public will be blamed for disorderly conduct.”
In his testimony to a government watchdog, the police commissioner, Insp Gen Cohen, said he had plans for the unit “to grow” and that it would solve a problem the police had in infiltrating Israel’s large Arab communities: “It’s very hard for us to work in Umm al-Fahm, it’s very hard for us to deal with crime in Juarish and Ramle.”
Comments two years ago from Yuval Diskin, the head of the Shin Bet, have raised fears about the uses the police unit may be put to. He said the security services had the right to use any means to “thwart” action, even democratic activity, by the Arab minority to reform Israel’s political system. All the Arab parties are committed to changing Israel’s status from a Jewish state to “a state of all its citizens”. _________________ --
'Suppression of truth, human spirit and the holy chord of justice never works long-term. Something the suppressors never get.' David Southwell
http://aangirfan.blogspot.com http://aanirfan.blogspot.com
Martin Van Creveld: Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: "Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother."
Martin Van Creveld: I'll quote Henry Kissinger: "In campaigns like this the antiterror forces lose, because they don't win, and the rebels win by not losing."
Joined: 13 Sep 2006 Posts: 2568 Location: One breath from Glory
Posted: Mon Feb 23, 2015 9:05 pm Post subject:
Irgon members dressed as arabs when they bombed the King David hotel _________________ JO911B.
"for we wrestle not against flesh and blood but against principalities, against powers, against rulers of the darkness of this world, against wicked spirits in high places " Eph.6 v 12
Joined: 25 Jul 2005 Posts: 18335 Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
Posted: Wed Apr 08, 2015 5:34 pm Post subject:
Perpetual war is the only valid explanation
Daily Pickings is a blog on issues and events related to the work of the Critical Thinking project and invariably references videos, articles, books and academic papers. Accumulation of these materials adds to the "Critical Thinking reference library".
We welcome comments and interaction on Daily Pickings either through the Forum, for which you need to be registered, or Comments. Critical Thinking is a collaborative, educational project relying on contributions from diverse sources.
Daily Pickings previously referenced Israel's Yinon plan for creating division and conflict across the Middle East to ensure Israel's supremacy. Israeli citizens, holding dual (Israel/US) nationality are driving policy in Washington and the Pentagon.
The Pentagon Plan to ‘Divide and Rule’ the Muslim World by Nafeez Ahmed
Yemen is the latest casualty of a neoconservative strategy commissioned by the US Army to ‘capitalise on Sunni-Shia conflict’ in the Middle East - the goal is nothing short of ‘Western dominance’
The war on Yemen appears to have been choreographed, by encouraging the Houthis to oust the former regime, with the express intention of creating conflict. It is a pattern which repeats time and time again, most recently with the creation and support of Islamic State (IS, ISIL, ISIS) by Israel, US and their allies, including Saudi Arabia. The outcome will, yet again, be chaos and mayhem.
This is against the backdrop of "negotiations" with Iran over fictitious nuclear weapons - did someone say WMDs in Iraq? Iran is the real target of this unjustified aggression
Thoughts On That Maybe-Deal About Iran's Nuclear Achievements by Moon Of Alabama
- The whole crisis over a "nuclear Iran" is manufactured based on lies from Israeli and U.S. intelligence services.
- The target of the U.S. and Israeli operations was never a "nuclear Iran" but an Iranian Islamic Republic that insists on independent internal and foreign policies.
- Iranian leaders have declared that any weapons of mass destruction contradict the philosophical and religious base of the Islamic State of Iran. They have insisted on this and did not retaliate even when their cities came under chemical attacks during the Iraq-Iran war.
- All U.S. intelligence services agree that Iran does not have any military nuclear program. There is nothing to fear from a pure civil nuclear program in Iran.
- All sanctions on Iran are illegal in the very first place. They have no basis in facts or law.
All of these wars need to be examined in the context of 9/11 and the political economy which serves the interest of the Structural Elite. Other narratives are just window dressing.
--------------------------------
To find out more about the Critical Thinking project go to freecriticalthinking.org
Raise awareness of issues ignored by the mainstream media and share information by forwarding this email to a friend, colleague or family member who can subscribe to the Critical Thinking mailing list to receive Daily Pickings: http://www.freecriticalthinking.org/subscribe
“Greater Israel”: The Zionist Plan for the Middle East
The Infamous "Oded Yinon Plan". Introduction by Michel Chossudovsky
By Israel Shahak
Global Research, March 22, 2015
http://www.globalresearch.ca/greater-israel-the-zionist-plan-for-the-m iddle-east/5324815
Association of Arab-American University Graduates, Inc. 3 March 2013
Region: Middle East & North Africa
Theme: Culture, Society & History, Politics and Religion
In-depth Report: IRAN: THE NEXT WAR?, IRAQ REPORT, PALESTINE, SYRIA: NATO'S NEXT WAR?
This article was published on Global Research April 29, 2013.
Global Research Editor’s Note
The following document pertaining to the formation of “Greater Israel” constitutes the cornerstone of powerful Zionist factions within the current Netanyahu government (which has recently been re-elected), the Likud party, as well as within the Israeli military and intelligence establishment. The election was fought by Netanyahu on a political platform which denies Palestinian statehood.
According to the founding father of Zionism Theodore Herzl, “the area of the Jewish State stretches: “From the Brook of Egypt to the Euphrates.” According to Rabbi Fischmann, “The Promised Land extends from the River of Egypt up to the Euphrates, it includes parts of Syria and Lebanon.”
When viewed in the current context, the war on Iraq, the 2006 war on Lebanon, the 2011 war on Libya, the ongoing war on Syria, not to mention the process of regime change in Egypt, must be understood in relation to the Zionist Plan for the Middle East. The latter consists in weakening and eventually fracturing neighboring Arab states as part of an Israeli expansionist project.
“Greater Israel” consists in an area extending from the Nile Valley to the Euphrates.
The Zionist project supports the Jewish settlement movement. More broadly it involves a policy of excluding Palestinians from Palestine leading to the eventual annexation of both the West Bank and Gaza to the State of Israel.
Greater Israel would create a number of proxy States. It would include parts of Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, the Sinai, as well as parts of Iraq and Saudi Arabia. (See map).
According to Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya in a 2011 Global Research article, The Yinon Plan was a continuation of Britain’s colonial design in the Middle East:
“[The Yinon plan] is an Israeli strategic plan to ensure Israeli regional superiority. It insists and stipulates that Israel must reconfigure its geo-political environment through the balkanization of the surrounding Arab states into smaller and weaker states.
Israeli strategists viewed Iraq as their biggest strategic challenge from an Arab state. This is why Iraq was outlined as the centerpiece to the balkanization of the Middle East and the Arab World. In Iraq, on the basis of the concepts of the Yinon Plan, Israeli strategists have called for the division of Iraq into a Kurdish state and two Arab states, one for Shiite Muslims and the other for Sunni Muslims. The first step towards establishing this was a war between Iraq and Iran, which the Yinon Plan discusses.
The Atlantic, in 2008, and the U.S. military’s Armed Forces Journal, in 2006, both published widely circulated maps that closely followed the outline of the Yinon Plan. Aside from a divided Iraq, which the Biden Plan also calls for, the Yinon Plan calls for a divided Lebanon, Egypt, and Syria. The partitioning of Iran, Turkey, Somalia, and Pakistan also all fall into line with these views. The Yinon Plan also calls for dissolution in North Africa and forecasts it as starting from Egypt and then spilling over into Sudan, Libya, and the rest of the region.
Greater Israel” requires the breaking up of the existing Arab states into small states.
“The plan operates on two essential premises. To survive, Israel must 1) become an imperial regional power, and 2) must effect the division of the whole area into small states by the dissolution of all existing Arab states. Small here will depend on the ethnic or sectarian composition of each state. Consequently, the Zionist hope is that sectarian-based states become Israel’s satellites and, ironically, its source of moral legitimation… This is not a new idea, nor does it surface for the first time in Zionist strategic thinking. Indeed, fragmenting all Arab states into smaller units has been a recurrent theme.” (Yinon Plan, see below)
Viewed in this context, the war on Syria and Iraq is part of the process of Israeli territorial expansion. Israeli intelligence working hand in glove with the US, Turkey and NATO is directly supportive of the crusade directed against the so-called Islamic State (ISIS), which ultimately seeks to destroy both Syria and Iraq as nation states.
Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, March 22, 2015
The Zionist Plan for the Middle East
Translated and edited by
Israel Shahak
The Israel of Theodore Herzl (1904) and of Rabbi Fischmann (1947)
In his Complete Diaries, Vol. II. p. 711, Theodore Herzl, the founder of Zionism, says that the area of the Jewish State stretches: “From the Brook of Egypt to the Euphrates.”
Rabbi Fischmann, member of the Jewish Agency for Palestine, declared in his testimony to the U.N. Special Committee of Enquiry on 9 July 1947: “The Promised Land extends from the River of Egypt up to the Euphrates, it includes parts of Syria and Lebanon.”
from
Daily Pickings previously referenced Israel's Yinon plan for creating division and conflict across the Middle East to ensure Israel's supremacy. Israeli citizens, holding dual (Israel/US) nationality are driving policy in Washington and the Pentagon.
The Pentagon Plan to ‘Divide and Rule’ the Muslim World by Nafeez Ahmed
Yemen is the latest casualty of a neoconservative strategy commissioned by the US Army to ‘capitalise on Sunni-Shia conflict’ in the Middle East - the goal is nothing short of ‘Western dominance’
The war on Yemen appears to have been choreographed, by encouraging the Houthis to oust the former regime, with the express intention of creating conflict. It is a pattern which repeats time and time again, most recently with the creation and support of Islamic State (IS, ISIL, ISIS) by Israel, US and their allies, including Saudi Arabia. The outcome will, yet again, be chaos and mayhem.
This is against the backdrop of "negotiations" with Iran over fictitious nuclear weapons - did someone say WMDs in Iraq? Iran is the real target of this unjustified aggression
Thoughts On That Maybe-Deal About Iran's Nuclear Achievements by Moon Of Alabama
- The whole crisis over a "nuclear Iran" is manufactured based on lies from Israeli and U.S. intelligence services.
- The target of the U.S. and Israeli operations was never a "nuclear Iran" but an Iranian Islamic Republic that insists on independent internal and foreign policies.
- Iranian leaders have declared that any weapons of mass destruction contradict the philosophical and religious base of the Islamic State of Iran. They have insisted on this and did not retaliate even when their cities came under chemical attacks during the Iraq-Iran war.
- All U.S. intelligence services agree that Iran does not have any military nuclear program. There is nothing to fear from a pure civil nuclear program in Iran.
- All sanctions on Iran are illegal in the very first place. They have no basis in facts or law.
All of these wars need to be examined in the context of 9/11 and the political economy which serves the interest of the Structural Elite. Other narratives are just window dressing.
--------------------------------
To find out more about the Critical Thinking project go to freecriticalthinking.org
“The Unfolding of Yinon’s ‘Zionist Plan for the Middle East’: The Crisis in Iraq and the Centrality of the National Interest of Israel,” illustrates how the ethno-sectarian fragmentation and internecine warfare between Shiites and Sunnis is in line with the Yinon plan to enhance Israel’s security and was ignited by the neocon-inspired US invasion of Iraq in 2003. Netanyahu and the neocons currently view Iran as a greater threat in the Middle East than ISIS, and while they advocate US military intervention, they emphasize that such intervention should not empower Iran, notes Stephen Sniegoski.
Greater Israel Plan MCS
by Stephen Sniegoski
Mainstream liberal David Ignatius observes in the ultra-establishment Washington Post:
“LET’S LOOK AT THE REALITY ON THE GROUND IN THE MIDDLE EAST: IRAQ AND SYRIA ARE EFFECTIVELY PARTITIONED ALONG SECTARIAN LINES; LEBANON AND YEMEN ARE CLOSE TO FRACTURING; TURKEY, EGYPT AND SAUDI ARABIA SURVIVE INTACT BUT AS INCREASINGLY AUTHORITARIAN STATES.
“IN THE CURRENT, CHAOTIC MOMENT, WE SEE TWO POST-IMPERIAL SYSTEMS COLLAPSING AT ONCE: THE STATE BOUNDARIES DRAWN BY THE VERSAILLES TREATY IN 1919 TO REPLACE THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE CAN’T HOLD THE FRACTIOUS PEOPLES TOGETHER. AND A U.S.-LED SYSTEM THAT KEPT THE REGION IN A ROUGH BALANCE HAS BEEN SHATTERED BY AMERICA’S FAILED INTERVENTION IN IRAQ.”[1]
The Washington Post expresses views that all respectable people are allowed, or even expected, to hold, so it is quite significant that this view now has emerged on center stage. Of course, it was not given any attention during the run-up to the US 2003 invasion of Iraq, when it could have served to prevent the chaos that has ensued, though it was mentioned by various Middle East experts, as was discussed in my book, The Transparent Cabal: The Neoconservative Agenda, War in the Middle East, and the National Interest of Israel.
Israel Shahak
Israel Shahak
As I brought out in The Transparent Cabal, ignored by the more respectable antiwar crowd as well as the mainstream, a fundamental purpose of the war on Iraq was to ignite the destabilization and fragmentation of Israel’s enemies throughout the Middle East, which has consequently taken place in tandem with a region-wide Sunni—Shiite war.
Moreover, I pointed out that this idea was best articulated, though did not originate, in a lengthy article in Hebrew by Likudnik Oded Yinon in 1982, which Israel Shahak, the perspicacious Israeli dissident,[2] translated in a booklet titled “The Zionist Plan for the Middle East.”[3]
And as the title of Shahak’s booklet clearly indicated, the fragmentation of Israel’s enemies was a goal of the Israeli right (and to some extent transcended the political right), and was not just some quirk of Yinon’s. Intertwined with this strategy was an effort to keep Israel’s larger enemies fighting among themselves.
As Victor Ostrovsky put it in his insider book on the Mossad, Israel actively worked to keep the war between Iran and Iraq in the 1980s “hot,” stating that “if they were busy fighting each other, they couldn’t fight us.”[4]
Victor Ostrovsky The Other Side of Deception 420 x 282
While neocons have not openly stated that this Likudnik aim is their goal, though some have alluded to something like this, they have openly stated their support for Israeli policy, which they maintain has the same interests as the US. For example, a letter of April 3, 2002 from the Project for the New American Century to President George W. Bush–signed by such neocon stalwarts as William Kristol, Ken Adelman, Richard Perle, Midge Decter, Robert Kagan, Joshua Muravchik, Daniel Pipes, Norman Podhoretz, and R. James Woolsey–urging the President to attack Iraq, included the following references to Israel:
“FURTHERMORE, MR. PRESIDENT, WE URGE YOU TO ACCELERATE PLANS FOR REMOVING SADDAM HUSSEIN FROM POWER IN IRAQ. . . . IT IS NOW COMMON KNOWLEDGE THAT SADDAM, ALONG WITH IRAN, IS A FUNDER AND SUPPORTER OF TERRORISM AGAINST ISRAEL. . . . IF WE DO NOT MOVE AGAINST SADDAM HUSSEIN AND HIS REGIME, THE DAMAGE OUR ISRAELI FRIENDS AND WE HAVE SUFFERED UNTIL NOW MAY SOMEDAY APPEAR BUT A PRELUDE TO MUCH GREATER HORRORS.”[5]
The letter continued with the assertion:
“ISRAEL’S FIGHT AGAINST TERRORISM IS OUR FIGHT. ISRAEL’S VICTORY IS AN IMPORTANT PART OF OUR VICTORY. FOR REASONS BOTH MORAL AND STRATEGIC, WE NEED TO STAND WITH ISRAEL IN ITS FIGHT AGAINST TERRORISM.”[6]
Who to blame for Iraq War
It would be hard to believe that the neocons, who were closely tied to the thinking of the Israeli right, have not been aware of this Likudnik strategic destabilization goal. Moreover, an individual who has been referred to as their leading academic guru, Middle East scholar Bernard Lewis, has written on the fragility of the dictatorial regimes of the Middle East.
Bernard Lewis
Bernard Lewis
Lewis echoed Yinon’s analysis of the fragility of the Middle Eastern countries with an article in the September 1992 issue of Foreign Affairs titled “Rethinking the Middle East.” In it, he wrote of a development he referred to as “Lebanonization,” stating that a “possibility, which could even be precipitated by [Islamic] fundamentalism, is what has of late been fashionable to call ‘Lebanonization.’ Most of the states of the Middle East—Egypt is an obvious exception—are of recent and artificial construction and are vulnerable to such a process. If the central power is sufficiently weakened, there is no real civil society to hold the polity together, no real sense of common identity or overriding allegiance to the nation state. The state then disintegrates—as happened in Lebanon—into a chaos of squabbling, feuding, fighting sects, tribes, regions, and parties.”[7]
Since Lewis— credited with coining the phrase “clash of civilizations”—has been a major advocate of a belligerent stance for the West against the Islamic states, it would appear that he realized that such fragmentation would be the result of his belligerent policy. Lewis was a major proponent of the US attack on Iraq and was an advisor to Dick Cheney, who for years has maintained close connections with the neocon nexus.[8]
Neocon David Wurmser, who was one of the authors of the notorious “A Clean Break” study (1996) wrote a much longer follow-up document for the same Israeli think tank, entitled “Coping with Crumbling States: A Western and Israeli Balance of Power Strategy for the Levant,” where he emphasized the fragile nature of the Middle Eastern Baathist dictatorships in Iraq and Syria, which, if the dictatorships faltered, could easily fragment into separate ethno-sectarian segments that would enhance the security of Israel and the West.[9]
Neocon Daniel Pipes, the founder and director of the Middle East Forum, a neocon organization focusing on the Middle East and the danger posed to the United States by Islamic radicalism, also openly presents this line of thinking. In regard to the Syrian civil war in 2013 he wrote: “Evil forces pose less danger to us when they make war on each other. This (1) keeps them focused locally and (2) prevents either one from emerging victorious (and thereby posing a yet-greater danger). Western powers should guide enemies to stalemate by helping whichever side is losing, so as to prolong the conflict.” [10]
As an aside, the chance of the removal of Saddam’s regime leading to the ethno-sectarian splintering of Iraq was not unknown to American Middle East experts. As I discussed in my book The Transparent Cabal, this was hardly unknown in the US. President George H. W. Bush and his Secretary of State James Baker refrained from having American troops invade the heartland of Iraq in the Gulf War of 1991 because of that very fear. The neocons, it should be emphasized, were demanding such an invasion at that time and would later chastise the Bush administration for its failure to do this. Similarly, my book makes reference to a number of US government studies that came out just prior to the 2003 invasion which forecast the likelihood that ethnic-sectarian fragmentation and violence would be a result.[11]
“We must weaken both [Sunni and Shia Muslims],” -- Netanyahu
“We must weaken both [Sunni and Shia Muslims],” — Netanyahu
In regard to the ISIS invasion of Iraq today, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, still viewing Iran as Israel’s greatest external threat, maintained that the United States should act to weaken both ISIS and Iran, saying “When your enemies are fighting each other, don’t strengthen either one of them. Weaken both.” [12] Although ISIS is in its rhetoric threatening not simply the Middle East but also the United States with terrorist attacks, Netanyahu emphasizes that the focus of United States policy should be on Iran. Holding that Iran’s achievement of nuclear weapons capability was the greater danger to the region, he warned against the US cooperating with Iran to defeat ISIS, which he fears might lead to a broader rapprochement between the two countries that would include a softening of the US anti-nuclear policy toward Iran.
ISIS conquests have actually improved Israel’s security by gaining control of both sides of the Iraq-Syria border and thus inhibiting Iran’s ability to supply its Hezbollah ally in Lebanon as well as Hamas in Palestine. Hezbollah has provided a major way by which Iran could militarily harm Israel, which means that the new situation has severely weakened Iran’s ability to retaliate against, or even deter, any possible Israeli attack. Consequently, Iran would find it necessary to be more wary about taking any steps that Israel would deem hostile, including expanding its nuclear program. This being the case, it is certainly in Israel’s interest that this Sunni region not be returned to any Iraqi government, local or national, that is not hostile to Iran.
Neocons are advocating strategies for the United States in line with Netanyahu’s position that a fundamental objective is to keep Iran out of the picture, and instead have the United States serve as the major adversary of ISIS. For instance, Frederick Kagan and Bill Kristol wrote in The Weekly Standard Blog on June 16 that it is essential to “act boldly and decisively to help stop the advance of the forces of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS)—without empowering Iran. This would mean pursuing a strategy in Iraq (and in Syria) that works to empower moderate Sunni and Shi’a without taking sectarian sides. This would mean aiming at the expulsion of foreign fighters, both al Qaeda terrorists and Iranian and Lebanese Hezbollah regular and special forces, from Iraq.
“This would require a willingness to send American forces back to Iraq. It would mean not merely conducting U.S. air strikes, but also accompanying those strikes with special operators, and perhaps regular U.S. military units, on the ground. This is the only chance we have to persuade Iraq’s Sunni Arabs that they have an alternative to joining up with al Qaeda or being at the mercy of government-backed and Iranian-backed death squads, and that we have not thrown in with the Iranians. It is also the only way to regain influence with the Iraqi government and to stabilize the Iraqi Security Forces on terms that would allow us to demand the demobilization of Shi’a militias and to move to limit Iranian influence and to create bargaining chips with Iran to insist on the withdrawal of their forces if and when the situation stabilizes.”[13]
Max Boot in his article in Commentary Magazine entitled “Getting Fooled by Iran in Iraq,” maintains that “Absent a much more active American role to oppose Iranian designs, the mullahs will be able to live out their dreams of regional hegemony at relatively small cost.” And even if the Sunnis could prevent Iranian regional domination, that would not benefit the United States, either.
“While some may take satisfaction from Sunni and Shiite extremists clashing,” Boot opines, “the problem is that they could both win–i.e., both sides could gain control of significant territory which will then become terrorist states.”[14]
“Put bluntly,” Boot continues, “the U.S. interest is in creating democratic, stable, and pro-Western regimes; the Iranian interest is in creating fundamentalist, terrorist-supporting, Shiite-extremist regimes. There is no overlap of interest except when we make the mistake of backing Iranian-aligned leaders such as Nouri al-Maliki.”
Eliott Abrams, former Deputy National Security Adviser with Dick Cheney former Vice President.
Eliot Abrams, former Deputy National Security Adviser with Dick Cheney former Vice President.
Elliot Abrams expresses a similar view:
“THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION HAS SOUGHT A GRAND RAPPROCHEMENT WITH IRAN, ONCE UPON A TIME CALLED ‘ENGAGEMENT,’ SINCE JANUARY 2009. APPARENTLY IT STILL DOES. BUT THE CURRENT PATH LEADS ONLY TO ENHANCING IRAN’S REGIONAL POWER, AND TO ALIENATING AND ENDANGERING OUR OWN ALLIES IN THE REGION. IRAN IS AN ENEMY OF THE UNITED STATES AND OF OUR ALLIES IN THE MIDDLE EAST, AS ITS OWN LEADERS REPEAT REGULARLY IN SPEECHES. TO WORK WITH IRAN TO ENLARGE ITS INFLUENCE IN LEBANON, SYRIA, AND IRAQ WILL FURTHER UNDERMINE AMERICAN INFLUENCE–AND NOT ONLY IN THE MIDDLE EAST. AROUND THE WORLD NATIONS DEPENDENT ON OUR WILLINGNESS TO RECOGNIZE AND RESIST RUSSIAN AND CHINESE EFFORTS AT HEGEMONY WILL ALSO BE CHILLED TO SEE SUCH A POLICY DEVELOP.”[15]
Eighty-four-year-old Norman Podhoretz, a neocon godfather, returned to the fray to offer his pessimistic version of the current dominant neocon view of the situation in Iraq.
“OBAMA,” HE OPINED, “EVIDENTLY NOW THINKS THAT A DE FACTO ALLIANCE WITH IRAN—IRAN!—IS THE WAY TO CLOSE THOSE DOORS, BUT SUCH AN ALLIANCE WOULD ONLY GUARANTEE THAT THEY WOULD OPEN EVEN WIDER THAN THEY ARE NOW. IT WOULD ALSO SOLIDIFY IRAN’S INFLUENCE OVER IRAQ WHILE GIVING A GREEN LIGHT TO AN IRANIAN NUCLEAR BOMB.
“ALAS, NONE OF THE OTHER PROPOSALS FOR GETTING US OUT OF THIS FIX SEEMS FULLY PERSUASIVE. WHICH MEANS THAT IT MAY BE TOO LATE TO PREVENT IRAQ FROM JOINING SYRIA AS PART OF A NEW IRANIAN EMPIRE.”[16]
It should be pointed out that prior to the 2003 invasion, the neocons did not ignore the likely need for the United States to maintain long-term political control of Iraq. In reality, the neocons generally argued that it was necessary for the United States to “educate” the Iraqis in the principles of democracy during a long period of American occupation. For instance, in September 2002, Norman Podhoretz acknowledged that the people of the Middle East might, if given a free democratic choice, pick anti-American, anti-Israeli leaders and policies. But he proclaimed that “there is a policy that can head it off,” provided “that we then have the stomach to impose a new political culture on the defeated parties. This is what we did directly and unapologetically in Germany and Japan after winning World War II.”[17]
Max Boot, The CFR neocon, a signatory to a screed calling for an invasion that ultimately killed more than a million Iraqis.
Max Boot, The CFR neocon, a signatory to a screed calling for an invasion that ultimately killed more than a million Iraqis.
Max Boot, in the neoconservative Weekly Standard in October 2001, argued “The Case for Empire.” “Afghanistan and other troubled lands today,” Boot intoned, “cry out for the sort of enlightened foreign administration once provided by self-confident Englishmen in jodhpurs and pith helmets.”[18] But any goal of controlling and “educating” the Iraqi people took a back seat as the neocons’ emphasis during the run-up to the invasion was placed on mobilizing governmental and overall public support for a war that would destroy Saddam’s regime, which was their primary goal.
To mobilize public and Congressional support for that endeavor, it was necessary to sugar coat its likely violent ramifications by claiming that few American troops would be needed and that they would be welcomed in with open arms by the Iraqi populace.
After the fall of Baghdad in April 2003, neocons and Bush administration officials held that the continued Iraq resistance to the American occupation represented only the activities of a few extremists—diehard Baathists and Al Qaeda terrorists from outside Iraq—adamantly denying that the insurgency was drawing significant support from the Iraqi people. On June 2003, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld dismissed the Iraqi resistance as a few “pockets of dead-enders.”[19] In June 2003, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz denied that those fighting American troops in Iraq were “insurgents.” “An insurgency implies something that rose up afterwards,” Wolfowitz staunchly asserted. “This is the same enemy that butchered Iraqis for 35 years, that fought us up until the fall of Baghdad and continues to fight afterwards.”[20]
Norman Podhoretz would reflect this state of denial in an article that came out in September 1, 2004, stating: “Most supporters of the invasion – myself included – had predicted that we would be greeted there with flowers and cheers; yet our troops encountered car bombs and hatred. Nevertheless, and contrary to the impression created by the media, survey after survey demonstrated the vast majority of Iraqis did welcome us, and were happy to be liberated from the murderous tyranny under which they had lived for long under Saddam Hussein. The hatred and the car bombs came from the same breed of jihadists who had attacked us on 9/11, and who, unlike the skeptics in our own country, were afraid that we were actually succeeding in democratizing Iraq.”[21]
However, as it became apparent that the US invasion had spawned large scale internecine violence in Iraq, the neocons began to emphasize that the US military forces were not being sufficiently tough enough in suppressing the rebellion. “Crush the Insurgents in Iraq,” bellowed an article in the May 23, 2004 issue of the Washington Post, co-authored by prominent New York politician-banker Lewis Lehrman and Bill Kristol. “The immediate task,” they proclaimed, “is . . . the destruction of the armies and militias of the insurgency – not taking and holding territory, not winning the hearts and minds of Iraqis, not conciliating opponents and critics, not gaining the approval of other nations.”[22]
Jim Lobe
Jim Lobe
Journalist Jim Lobe pointed out in May 2004 that the failure of the American military to be sufficiently ruthless “infuriates the neocons who, despite their constant rhetoric about democracy and the importance of the ‘war of ideas,’ have always considered military force to be the only language their enemies can ever really understand.” Lobe observed: “Precisely how Fallujah or other towns and cities are to be ‘conquered’ without piling up horrendous civilian casualties that alienate people far beyond Iraq’s borders is unclear.”[23] Of course, inflaming all the Muslim peoples of the Middle East would serve to put the US in the same enemy category as Israel and advance the neoconservatives’ goal of a US war against all of Israel’s enemies.
In tandem with the neocons’ advocacy of a tougher policy toward the Iraqi insurgents was their allegation that it was being instigated and supported by outside forces, especially Iran, which was Israel’s major enemy. In the immediate aftermath of the US invasion, Israeli officials were pushing for a US attack on Iran. Israeli officials clearly saw the United States attack on Iraq as the first step in a broader effort that would change the Middle East for the interests of Israel. In April 2003, Israel’s ambassador to the United States, Daniel Ayalon, called for a “regime change” in both Syria and Iran at a conference of the Anti-Defamation League. He argued that, while the American invasion of Iraq and overthrow of Saddam helped create great opportunities for Israel, it was “not enough.” “It has to follow through,” Ayalon told the audience. “We still have great threats of that magnitude coming from Syria, coming from Iran . . . . The important thing is to show [international] political unity and this is the key element to pressure the Iranians into a regime change, and the same case is with the Syrians.” [24]
The question seemed to be whether to go after Iran directly or hit at it through its ally Syria, which was closer to Israel and served as a conduit for Iranian weapons going to Israel’s enemies, Hezbollah and Hamas. In December 2004, a lead editorial in the Weekly Standard by Bill Kristol emphasized that the United States had an urgent and dire “Syria problem.” “Of course we also have—the world also has—an Iran problem, and a Saudi problem, and lots of other problems,” Kristol explained. “The Iran and Saudi problems may ultimately be more serious than the Syria problem. But the Syria problem is urgent: It is Bashar Assad’s regime that seems to be doing more than any other, right now, to help Baathists and terrorists kill Americans in the central front of the war on terror.” It was thus essential for the United States “to get serious about dealing with Syria as part of winning in Iraq, and in the broader Middle East.” [25]
But while Syria was a danger because of its connection to Iran and proximity to Israel, Iran was seen as the major danger. In May 2005, Richard Perle was the major attraction of AIPAC’s (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) annual conference in Washington with his call for an attack on Iran. The danger of Iran also was featured in an AIPAC multimedia show, “Iran’s Path to the Bomb.” The Washington Post’s Dana Milbank described the Disneyesque multimedia show: “The exhibit, worthy of a theme park, begins with a narrator condemning the International Atomic Energy Agency for being ‘unwilling to conclude that Iran is developing nuclear weapons’ (it had similar reservations about Iraq) and the Security Council because it ‘has yet to take up the issue.’ In a succession of rooms, visitors see flashing lights and hear rumbling sounds as Dr. Seuss-like contraptions make yellowcake uranium, reprocess plutonium, and pop out nuclear warheads like so many gallons of hummus for an AIPAC conference.”[26]
Ken Timmerman -- Osama in Iran ?
Ken Timmerman — Osama in Iran ?
New neoconservative publications in 2005 also pushed for stronger measures against Iran. In Countdown to Crisis: The Coming Nuclear Showdown With Iran, Kenneth Timmerman, a member of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affair’s (JINSA) advisory board and executive director of the Foundation for Democracy in Iran, claimed that Iran had collaborated with Al Qaeda in plotting the September 11 terror attacks, and was currently harboring Osama bin Laden. [27] Timmerman also was one of the authors of the study “Launch Regional Initiatives,” published by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) at the end of November 2005. In the section on Iran, the publication portrayed the Islamic regime as America’s irreconcilable enemy with whom détente was impossible. It suggested a number of militant measures for the United States to take in order to bring about regime change: “The United States must wage total political war against the Islamofascists in Tehran, both inside Iran and from the outside. This war should be designed to keep the Iranian regime off balance (including, where necessary, through the use of covert means), with the ultimate goal of undermining its control.”[28] Most of the proposed American efforts to undermine the existing Iranian regime did not involve a direct American military attack, but the latter was not ruled out to stop Iran’s nuclear program: “The stakes are sufficiently high that we must also be prepared to use military force—alone if necessary, with others if practicable—to disrupt Iran’s known and suspected nuclear operations.” [29]
One way to weaken Iran would be to fragment it into various groups—in line with Oded Yinon’s plan for the Middle East. This seems to have been the underlying theme of the October 26, 2005 AEI conference entitled “The Unknown Iran: Another Case for Federalism?,” moderated by AEI resident scholar Michael A. Ledeen. The announcement for the conference stated that “few realize that Persians likely constitute a minority of the Iranian population. The majority is composed of Azerbaijanis, Kurds, Baluchis, Turkmen, and the Arabs of Khuzistan / al-ahwaz. In the event the current regime falls, these groups will undoubtedly play an important role in their country’s future.” Individuals speaking at the conference included ethnic separatists.[30]
As time went by and violence against the American occupation of Iraq continued, the American people were becoming opposed to the military endeavor and in early 2006 the US Congress established a special, independent, bipartisan commission, the Iraq Study Group, which would not only provide a solution for Iraq but also deal with the broader Middle East. Since the study group was headed by James Baker (a close confidant of the elder Bush) and comprised other establishment luminaries, neocons realized, and various leaks confirmed, that it would propose to extract US forces from Iraq (though in a gradual fashion), which would militate against American efforts to induce regime change in additional Middle Eastern countries, especially Iran. Moreover, it was revealed that the Iraq Study Group sought to establish US engagement with Iran in order to bring about stability to Iraq and the entire Middle East by diplomatic means—stability being the foreign policy establishment’s fundamental goal.
Frederick Kagan and General Jack Keane AEITo prevent the Iraq Study Group’s ideas from reaching fruition, a counter proposal was developed at the neocon American Enterprise Institute (AEI) , its principal developers being Frederick Kagan and General Jack Keane, former vice chief of staff of the U.S. Army, which called for a drastic increase in American forces, and thus became commonly known as the “surge.”
Although the “surge” was opposed by most members of Congress, military leaders, the foreign policy establishment and a majority of the American people, President Bush nonetheless adopted it in early 2007.
After a rocky start, the surge strategy would bring about a significant reduction in the violent resistance in Iraq by the end of 2007, and thus proved to be a significant political victory for President Bush and the neocons, being touted as having been a great success even today. However, the original rationale for the surge was to reduce the intense ethno-sectarian fissiparous divisions in Iraq, thus unifying the country under the national government. This clearly did not take place.
The surge, in fact, militated against national unity because a fundamental US tactic was to strengthen local Sunni tribal leaders to fight the Al Qaeda insurgents, which included providing them training and arms. The tribal leaders effectively fought Al Qaeda but, in the process, set up their own little fiefdoms independent of central government control. Marc Lynch, a Middle East specialist at George Washington University, observed in the fall of 2007 that this approach was leading to a “warlord state” in Iraq with “power devolved to local militias, gangs, tribes and power-brokers, with a purely nominal central state.”[31] And it is just those organized and armed Sunni groups who have now joined with ISIS in the effort to overthrow the pro-Shiite Maliki government of Iraq, which had tried to bring them under its control. In fact, it now seems apparent that the ease by which ISIS swept through predominantly Sunni northwest Iraq was largely due to the fact that the Iraqi army there was primarily composed of Sunnis, who were unwilling to fight on behalf of a pro-Shiite regime, and that the local inhabitants saw ISIS as a force that would liberate them from any existing or attempted domination by the Shiite-run central government in Baghdad.
President Obama sends John Kerry to Middle East, to Handle Iraq Crisis
President Obama sends John Kerry to Middle East, to Handle Iraq Crisis
Despite President Obama and Secretary of State Kerry’s call for an inclusive, non-sectarian national government, it is not apparent if this could be established without antagonizing one or the other of the major ethno-sectarian groups. The idea that the United States would send in enough troops to suppress the Sunni insurrection and compel the central government to accept significant representation and input from the Sunnis– in short, a government that did not represent majoritarian rule–would be unacceptable to many Shiites.
Efforts to establish some type of balanced government representing both the interests of Shiites and Sunnis (even leaving aside existing Kurdish autonomy) would be apt to lead to insurrections by groups, and likely require the forceful imposition of a US controlled puppet government. This would seem to be in line with much of the neocons’ thinking, but would not be acceptable to the American people, and also probably unacceptable to the American foreign policy establishment, considering the difficulty involved in achieving such a Herculean task and the regional hostility, with its concomitant negative effects on American regional interests, it would inflame.
From the American standpoint, the simplest and least expensive way, in both blood and treasure, to establish stability would be to allow for Iranian and Syrian intervention on behalf of the Maliki government–or another government that reflected the will of the Shiite majority. As pointed out earlier in this essay, this is one result that the Israeli government and the neocons seek to prevent, perceiving ,as they do, Iran as Israel’s major enemy.
The Muslim population of Iraq is approximately 60-65 percent Arab Shi'a, 15-20 percent Arab Sunni and 17 percent Kurdish. Iraqi Kurds are mostly Sunni, with about 10% being Shi'a Faili Kurds.
The Muslim population of Iraq is approximately 60-65 percent Arab Shi’a, 15-20 percent Arab Sunni and 17 percent Kurdish. Iraqi Kurds are mostly Sunni, with about 10% being Shi’a Faili Kurds.
And this approach would not be guaranteed of success since it would likely lead to greater support for the Sunni insurgents from Saudi Arabia and the Gulf emirates. So far, the Saudis and the Gulf sheikhdoms have provided intermittent support for radical Islamist groups such as ISIS, which they perceive as a very effective weapon against their Shiite and other non-Sunni foes (e.g. Assad’s regime in Syria) in the region, but which they also fear because of the latter’s threat to their own regimes, which the radical Islamists consider to be pro-Western, corrupt, and insufficiently Islamic. Thus the Saudis and the Gulf states try to make sure that radical Islamist groups such as ISIS do not become too powerful.
This restraint would likely be much lessened if the Syrian and Iranian involvement intensified. It is likely that such a development would lead to a stalemate in Iraq, with the ISIS-led coalition of Sunni forces retaining control of the Sunni heartland in northern and western Iraq while the Shiite-dominated central government would remain in control of the predominately Shiite areas in the eastern and southern parts of the country, including Baghdad. This would likely be an unstable situation with undefined borders where continuous military skirmishing would be the norm, which would also involve the Kurds in some areas. Moreover, it is quite likely that internecine fighting would take place within these areas themselves, as different groups would contend for power among themselves.
The result of almost all these aforementioned scenarios–consisting of continued Sunni-Shiite regional warfare, along with Iraq’s fragmentation–certainly is in line with Yinon’s view of Israel’s security. And the neocons who have been pushing for greater American intervention can always maintain that any chaos and violence in the region is due to the fact that their advice to retain large numbers of American troops in Iraq and “educate” (control) the Iraqi leaders was not followed.
A number of commentators have compared the situation in Iraq to the well-known old English nursery rhyme for children, “Humpty Dumpty ” (usually portrayed as a squat, egg-like being), who falls, breaking into pieces, and can’t be put back together. However, to be a more accurate analogy, the “Humpty Dumpty” nursery rhyme would need a revision so as to read something like the following:
Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall,
Humpty Dumpty was pushed and made to fall,
And all the king’s horses and all the king’s men,
Couldn’t put Humpty back together again.
(And those who pushed him seem to prefer him as he is now.)
Transparent Cabal maidhcStephen J. Sniegoski, Ph.D. earned his doctorate in American history,with a focus on American foreign policy, at the University of Maryland. His focus on the neoconservative involvement in American foreign policy antedates September 11,and his first major work on the subject, “The War on Iraq: Conceived in Israel” was published February 10, 2003, more than a month before the American attack. He is the author of “The Transparent Cabal: The Neoconservative Agenda, War in the Middle East, and the National Interest of Israel”. He can be contacted at: hectorpv@comcast.net.
STEPHEN SNIEGOSKI SPEAKS AT: NATIONAL SUMMIT TO REASSESS THE U.S.-ISRAEL “SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP”
[2] The Washington Report on the Middle East provided the following description of Israel Shahak’s writing: “Shahak gained a wide international audience through his regular “Translations from the Hebrew Press”, which gave the non-Hebrew speaking world a unique glimpse into the extreme and racist rhetoric about Arabs, Palestinians and Jewish supremacy that characterizes much of ‘mainstream’ discourse in Israel. The translations also clarified Israeli strategic thinking and policy goals in a manner that directly contradicted official ‘hasbara‘ (propaganda), which presented Israel as a besieged state struggling only for peace and survival. Shahak´s writings continuously exposed and denounced Israel as an expansionist, chauvinist and racist state bent on the domination of the surrounding Arab peoples, especially the Palestinians.” http://www.bintjbeil.com/E/occupation/shahak2.html
[3] The Zionist Plan for the Middle East, translated and edited by Israel Shahak, Belmont, Mass.: Association of Arab-American University Graduates, Inc., 1982.
[9] David Wurmser, Coping with Crumbling States a Western and Israeli Balance of Power Strategy for the Levant, Washington, DC: Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies (IASPS), 1996.
[11] Stephen J. Sniegoski, The Transparent Cabal: The Neoconservative Agenda, War in the Middle East, and the National Interest of Israel, (Norfolk, Va., Enigma, 2008), pp. 73-75, 337-38.
[31] Jim Lobe, “Fears grow of post-‘surge’ woes,” Asia Times, November 22, 2007, http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IK22Ak07.html _________________ --
'Suppression of truth, human spirit and the holy chord of justice never works long-term. Something the suppressors never get.' David Southwell
http://aangirfan.blogspot.com http://aanirfan.blogspot.com
Martin Van Creveld: Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: "Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother."
Martin Van Creveld: I'll quote Henry Kissinger: "In campaigns like this the antiterror forces lose, because they don't win, and the rebels win by not losing."
“The Unfolding of Yinon’s ‘Zionist Plan for the Middle East’: The Crisis in Iraq and the Centrality of the National Interest of Israel,” illustrates how the ethno-sectarian fragmentation and internecine warfare between Shiites and Sunnis is in line with the Yinon plan to enhance Israel’s security and was ignited by the neocon-inspired US invasion of Iraq in 2003. Netanyahu and the neocons currently view Iran as a greater threat in the Middle East than ISIS, and while they advocate US military intervention, they emphasize that such intervention should not empower Iran, notes Stephen Sniegoski.
Greater Israel Plan MCS
by Stephen Sniegoski
Mainstream liberal David Ignatius observes in the ultra-establishment Washington Post:
“LET’S LOOK AT THE REALITY ON THE GROUND IN THE MIDDLE EAST: IRAQ AND SYRIA ARE EFFECTIVELY PARTITIONED ALONG SECTARIAN LINES; LEBANON AND YEMEN ARE CLOSE TO FRACTURING; TURKEY, EGYPT AND SAUDI ARABIA SURVIVE INTACT BUT AS INCREASINGLY AUTHORITARIAN STATES.
“IN THE CURRENT, CHAOTIC MOMENT, WE SEE TWO POST-IMPERIAL SYSTEMS COLLAPSING AT ONCE: THE STATE BOUNDARIES DRAWN BY THE VERSAILLES TREATY IN 1919 TO REPLACE THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE CAN’T HOLD THE FRACTIOUS PEOPLES TOGETHER. AND A U.S.-LED SYSTEM THAT KEPT THE REGION IN A ROUGH BALANCE HAS BEEN SHATTERED BY AMERICA’S FAILED INTERVENTION IN IRAQ.”[1]
The Washington Post expresses views that all respectable people are allowed, or even expected, to hold, so it is quite significant that this view now has emerged on center stage. Of course, it was not given any attention during the run-up to the US 2003 invasion of Iraq, when it could have served to prevent the chaos that has ensued, though it was mentioned by various Middle East experts, as was discussed in my book, The Transparent Cabal: The Neoconservative Agenda, War in the Middle East, and the National Interest of Israel.
Israel Shahak
Israel Shahak
As I brought out in The Transparent Cabal, ignored by the more respectable antiwar crowd as well as the mainstream, a fundamental purpose of the war on Iraq was to ignite the destabilization and fragmentation of Israel’s enemies throughout the Middle East, which has consequently taken place in tandem with a region-wide Sunni—Shiite war.
Moreover, I pointed out that this idea was best articulated, though did not originate, in a lengthy article in Hebrew by Likudnik Oded Yinon in 1982, which Israel Shahak, the perspicacious Israeli dissident,[2] translated in a booklet titled “The Zionist Plan for the Middle East.”[3]
And as the title of Shahak’s booklet clearly indicated, the fragmentation of Israel’s enemies was a goal of the Israeli right (and to some extent transcended the political right), and was not just some quirk of Yinon’s. Intertwined with this strategy was an effort to keep Israel’s larger enemies fighting among themselves.
As Victor Ostrovsky put it in his insider book on the Mossad, Israel actively worked to keep the war between Iran and Iraq in the 1980s “hot,” stating that “if they were busy fighting each other, they couldn’t fight us.”[4]
Victor Ostrovsky The Other Side of Deception 420 x 282
While neocons have not openly stated that this Likudnik aim is their goal, though some have alluded to something like this, they have openly stated their support for Israeli policy, which they maintain has the same interests as the US. For example, a letter of April 3, 2002 from the Project for the New American Century to President George W. Bush–signed by such neocon stalwarts as William Kristol, Ken Adelman, Richard Perle, Midge Decter, Robert Kagan, Joshua Muravchik, Daniel Pipes, Norman Podhoretz, and R. James Woolsey–urging the President to attack Iraq, included the following references to Israel:
“FURTHERMORE, MR. PRESIDENT, WE URGE YOU TO ACCELERATE PLANS FOR REMOVING SADDAM HUSSEIN FROM POWER IN IRAQ. . . . IT IS NOW COMMON KNOWLEDGE THAT SADDAM, ALONG WITH IRAN, IS A FUNDER AND SUPPORTER OF TERRORISM AGAINST ISRAEL. . . . IF WE DO NOT MOVE AGAINST SADDAM HUSSEIN AND HIS REGIME, THE DAMAGE OUR ISRAELI FRIENDS AND WE HAVE SUFFERED UNTIL NOW MAY SOMEDAY APPEAR BUT A PRELUDE TO MUCH GREATER HORRORS.”[5]
The letter continued with the assertion:
“ISRAEL’S FIGHT AGAINST TERRORISM IS OUR FIGHT. ISRAEL’S VICTORY IS AN IMPORTANT PART OF OUR VICTORY. FOR REASONS BOTH MORAL AND STRATEGIC, WE NEED TO STAND WITH ISRAEL IN ITS FIGHT AGAINST TERRORISM.”[6]
Who to blame for Iraq War
It would be hard to believe that the neocons, who were closely tied to the thinking of the Israeli right, have not been aware of this Likudnik strategic destabilization goal. Moreover, an individual who has been referred to as their leading academic guru, Middle East scholar Bernard Lewis, has written on the fragility of the dictatorial regimes of the Middle East.
Bernard Lewis
Bernard Lewis
Lewis echoed Yinon’s analysis of the fragility of the Middle Eastern countries with an article in the September 1992 issue of Foreign Affairs titled “Rethinking the Middle East.” In it, he wrote of a development he referred to as “Lebanonization,” stating that a “possibility, which could even be precipitated by [Islamic] fundamentalism, is what has of late been fashionable to call ‘Lebanonization.’ Most of the states of the Middle East—Egypt is an obvious exception—are of recent and artificial construction and are vulnerable to such a process. If the central power is sufficiently weakened, there is no real civil society to hold the polity together, no real sense of common identity or overriding allegiance to the nation state. The state then disintegrates—as happened in Lebanon—into a chaos of squabbling, feuding, fighting sects, tribes, regions, and parties.”[7]
Since Lewis— credited with coining the phrase “clash of civilizations”—has been a major advocate of a belligerent stance for the West against the Islamic states, it would appear that he realized that such fragmentation would be the result of his belligerent policy. Lewis was a major proponent of the US attack on Iraq and was an advisor to Dick Cheney, who for years has maintained close connections with the neocon nexus.[8]
Neocon David Wurmser, who was one of the authors of the notorious “A Clean Break” study (1996) wrote a much longer follow-up document for the same Israeli think tank, entitled “Coping with Crumbling States: A Western and Israeli Balance of Power Strategy for the Levant,” where he emphasized the fragile nature of the Middle Eastern Baathist dictatorships in Iraq and Syria, which, if the dictatorships faltered, could easily fragment into separate ethno-sectarian segments that would enhance the security of Israel and the West.[9]
Neocon Daniel Pipes, the founder and director of the Middle East Forum, a neocon organization focusing on the Middle East and the danger posed to the United States by Islamic radicalism, also openly presents this line of thinking. In regard to the Syrian civil war in 2013 he wrote: “Evil forces pose less danger to us when they make war on each other. This (1) keeps them focused locally and (2) prevents either one from emerging victorious (and thereby posing a yet-greater danger). Western powers should guide enemies to stalemate by helping whichever side is losing, so as to prolong the conflict.” [10]
As an aside, the chance of the removal of Saddam’s regime leading to the ethno-sectarian splintering of Iraq was not unknown to American Middle East experts. As I discussed in my book The Transparent Cabal, this was hardly unknown in the US. President George H. W. Bush and his Secretary of State James Baker refrained from having American troops invade the heartland of Iraq in the Gulf War of 1991 because of that very fear. The neocons, it should be emphasized, were demanding such an invasion at that time and would later chastise the Bush administration for its failure to do this. Similarly, my book makes reference to a number of US government studies that came out just prior to the 2003 invasion which forecast the likelihood that ethnic-sectarian fragmentation and violence would be a result.[11]
“We must weaken both [Sunni and Shia Muslims],” -- Netanyahu
“We must weaken both [Sunni and Shia Muslims],” — Netanyahu
In regard to the ISIS invasion of Iraq today, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, still viewing Iran as Israel’s greatest external threat, maintained that the United States should act to weaken both ISIS and Iran, saying “When your enemies are fighting each other, don’t strengthen either one of them. Weaken both.” [12] Although ISIS is in its rhetoric threatening not simply the Middle East but also the United States with terrorist attacks, Netanyahu emphasizes that the focus of United States policy should be on Iran. Holding that Iran’s achievement of nuclear weapons capability was the greater danger to the region, he warned against the US cooperating with Iran to defeat ISIS, which he fears might lead to a broader rapprochement between the two countries that would include a softening of the US anti-nuclear policy toward Iran.
ISIS conquests have actually improved Israel’s security by gaining control of both sides of the Iraq-Syria border and thus inhibiting Iran’s ability to supply its Hezbollah ally in Lebanon as well as Hamas in Palestine. Hezbollah has provided a major way by which Iran could militarily harm Israel, which means that the new situation has severely weakened Iran’s ability to retaliate against, or even deter, any possible Israeli attack. Consequently, Iran would find it necessary to be more wary about taking any steps that Israel would deem hostile, including expanding its nuclear program. This being the case, it is certainly in Israel’s interest that this Sunni region not be returned to any Iraqi government, local or national, that is not hostile to Iran.
Neocons are advocating strategies for the United States in line with Netanyahu’s position that a fundamental objective is to keep Iran out of the picture, and instead have the United States serve as the major adversary of ISIS. For instance, Frederick Kagan and Bill Kristol wrote in The Weekly Standard Blog on June 16 that it is essential to “act boldly and decisively to help stop the advance of the forces of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS)—without empowering Iran. This would mean pursuing a strategy in Iraq (and in Syria) that works to empower moderate Sunni and Shi’a without taking sectarian sides. This would mean aiming at the expulsion of foreign fighters, both al Qaeda terrorists and Iranian and Lebanese Hezbollah regular and special forces, from Iraq.
“This would require a willingness to send American forces back to Iraq. It would mean not merely conducting U.S. air strikes, but also accompanying those strikes with special operators, and perhaps regular U.S. military units, on the ground. This is the only chance we have to persuade Iraq’s Sunni Arabs that they have an alternative to joining up with al Qaeda or being at the mercy of government-backed and Iranian-backed death squads, and that we have not thrown in with the Iranians. It is also the only way to regain influence with the Iraqi government and to stabilize the Iraqi Security Forces on terms that would allow us to demand the demobilization of Shi’a militias and to move to limit Iranian influence and to create bargaining chips with Iran to insist on the withdrawal of their forces if and when the situation stabilizes.”[13]
Max Boot in his article in Commentary Magazine entitled “Getting Fooled by Iran in Iraq,” maintains that “Absent a much more active American role to oppose Iranian designs, the mullahs will be able to live out their dreams of regional hegemony at relatively small cost.” And even if the Sunnis could prevent Iranian regional domination, that would not benefit the United States, either.
“While some may take satisfaction from Sunni and Shiite extremists clashing,” Boot opines, “the problem is that they could both win–i.e., both sides could gain control of significant territory which will then become terrorist states.”[14]
“Put bluntly,” Boot continues, “the U.S. interest is in creating democratic, stable, and pro-Western regimes; the Iranian interest is in creating fundamentalist, terrorist-supporting, Shiite-extremist regimes. There is no overlap of interest except when we make the mistake of backing Iranian-aligned leaders such as Nouri al-Maliki.”
Eliott Abrams, former Deputy National Security Adviser with Dick Cheney former Vice President.
Eliot Abrams, former Deputy National Security Adviser with Dick Cheney former Vice President.
Elliot Abrams expresses a similar view:
“THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION HAS SOUGHT A GRAND RAPPROCHEMENT WITH IRAN, ONCE UPON A TIME CALLED ‘ENGAGEMENT,’ SINCE JANUARY 2009. APPARENTLY IT STILL DOES. BUT THE CURRENT PATH LEADS ONLY TO ENHANCING IRAN’S REGIONAL POWER, AND TO ALIENATING AND ENDANGERING OUR OWN ALLIES IN THE REGION. IRAN IS AN ENEMY OF THE UNITED STATES AND OF OUR ALLIES IN THE MIDDLE EAST, AS ITS OWN LEADERS REPEAT REGULARLY IN SPEECHES. TO WORK WITH IRAN TO ENLARGE ITS INFLUENCE IN LEBANON, SYRIA, AND IRAQ WILL FURTHER UNDERMINE AMERICAN INFLUENCE–AND NOT ONLY IN THE MIDDLE EAST. AROUND THE WORLD NATIONS DEPENDENT ON OUR WILLINGNESS TO RECOGNIZE AND RESIST RUSSIAN AND CHINESE EFFORTS AT HEGEMONY WILL ALSO BE CHILLED TO SEE SUCH A POLICY DEVELOP.”[15]
Eighty-four-year-old Norman Podhoretz, a neocon godfather, returned to the fray to offer his pessimistic version of the current dominant neocon view of the situation in Iraq.
“OBAMA,” HE OPINED, “EVIDENTLY NOW THINKS THAT A DE FACTO ALLIANCE WITH IRAN—IRAN!—IS THE WAY TO CLOSE THOSE DOORS, BUT SUCH AN ALLIANCE WOULD ONLY GUARANTEE THAT THEY WOULD OPEN EVEN WIDER THAN THEY ARE NOW. IT WOULD ALSO SOLIDIFY IRAN’S INFLUENCE OVER IRAQ WHILE GIVING A GREEN LIGHT TO AN IRANIAN NUCLEAR BOMB.
“ALAS, NONE OF THE OTHER PROPOSALS FOR GETTING US OUT OF THIS FIX SEEMS FULLY PERSUASIVE. WHICH MEANS THAT IT MAY BE TOO LATE TO PREVENT IRAQ FROM JOINING SYRIA AS PART OF A NEW IRANIAN EMPIRE.”[16]
It should be pointed out that prior to the 2003 invasion, the neocons did not ignore the likely need for the United States to maintain long-term political control of Iraq. In reality, the neocons generally argued that it was necessary for the United States to “educate” the Iraqis in the principles of democracy during a long period of American occupation. For instance, in September 2002, Norman Podhoretz acknowledged that the people of the Middle East might, if given a free democratic choice, pick anti-American, anti-Israeli leaders and policies. But he proclaimed that “there is a policy that can head it off,” provided “that we then have the stomach to impose a new political culture on the defeated parties. This is what we did directly and unapologetically in Germany and Japan after winning World War II.”[17]
Max Boot, The CFR neocon, a signatory to a screed calling for an invasion that ultimately killed more than a million Iraqis.
Max Boot, The CFR neocon, a signatory to a screed calling for an invasion that ultimately killed more than a million Iraqis.
Max Boot, in the neoconservative Weekly Standard in October 2001, argued “The Case for Empire.” “Afghanistan and other troubled lands today,” Boot intoned, “cry out for the sort of enlightened foreign administration once provided by self-confident Englishmen in jodhpurs and pith helmets.”[18] But any goal of controlling and “educating” the Iraqi people took a back seat as the neocons’ emphasis during the run-up to the invasion was placed on mobilizing governmental and overall public support for a war that would destroy Saddam’s regime, which was their primary goal.
To mobilize public and Congressional support for that endeavor, it was necessary to sugar coat its likely violent ramifications by claiming that few American troops would be needed and that they would be welcomed in with open arms by the Iraqi populace.
After the fall of Baghdad in April 2003, neocons and Bush administration officials held that the continued Iraq resistance to the American occupation represented only the activities of a few extremists—diehard Baathists and Al Qaeda terrorists from outside Iraq—adamantly denying that the insurgency was drawing significant support from the Iraqi people. On June 2003, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld dismissed the Iraqi resistance as a few “pockets of dead-enders.”[19] In June 2003, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz denied that those fighting American troops in Iraq were “insurgents.” “An insurgency implies something that rose up afterwards,” Wolfowitz staunchly asserted. “This is the same enemy that butchered Iraqis for 35 years, that fought us up until the fall of Baghdad and continues to fight afterwards.”[20]
Norman Podhoretz would reflect this state of denial in an article that came out in September 1, 2004, stating: “Most supporters of the invasion – myself included – had predicted that we would be greeted there with flowers and cheers; yet our troops encountered car bombs and hatred. Nevertheless, and contrary to the impression created by the media, survey after survey demonstrated the vast majority of Iraqis did welcome us, and were happy to be liberated from the murderous tyranny under which they had lived for long under Saddam Hussein. The hatred and the car bombs came from the same breed of jihadists who had attacked us on 9/11, and who, unlike the skeptics in our own country, were afraid that we were actually succeeding in democratizing Iraq.”[21]
However, as it became apparent that the US invasion had spawned large scale internecine violence in Iraq, the neocons began to emphasize that the US military forces were not being sufficiently tough enough in suppressing the rebellion. “Crush the Insurgents in Iraq,” bellowed an article in the May 23, 2004 issue of the Washington Post, co-authored by prominent New York politician-banker Lewis Lehrman and Bill Kristol. “The immediate task,” they proclaimed, “is . . . the destruction of the armies and militias of the insurgency – not taking and holding territory, not winning the hearts and minds of Iraqis, not conciliating opponents and critics, not gaining the approval of other nations.”[22]
Jim Lobe
Jim Lobe
Journalist Jim Lobe pointed out in May 2004 that the failure of the American military to be sufficiently ruthless “infuriates the neocons who, despite their constant rhetoric about democracy and the importance of the ‘war of ideas,’ have always considered military force to be the only language their enemies can ever really understand.” Lobe observed: “Precisely how Fallujah or other towns and cities are to be ‘conquered’ without piling up horrendous civilian casualties that alienate people far beyond Iraq’s borders is unclear.”[23] Of course, inflaming all the Muslim peoples of the Middle East would serve to put the US in the same enemy category as Israel and advance the neoconservatives’ goal of a US war against all of Israel’s enemies.
In tandem with the neocons’ advocacy of a tougher policy toward the Iraqi insurgents was their allegation that it was being instigated and supported by outside forces, especially Iran, which was Israel’s major enemy. In the immediate aftermath of the US invasion, Israeli officials were pushing for a US attack on Iran. Israeli officials clearly saw the United States attack on Iraq as the first step in a broader effort that would change the Middle East for the interests of Israel. In April 2003, Israel’s ambassador to the United States, Daniel Ayalon, called for a “regime change” in both Syria and Iran at a conference of the Anti-Defamation League. He argued that, while the American invasion of Iraq and overthrow of Saddam helped create great opportunities for Israel, it was “not enough.” “It has to follow through,” Ayalon told the audience. “We still have great threats of that magnitude coming from Syria, coming from Iran . . . . The important thing is to show [international] political unity and this is the key element to pressure the Iranians into a regime change, and the same case is with the Syrians.” [24]
The question seemed to be whether to go after Iran directly or hit at it through its ally Syria, which was closer to Israel and served as a conduit for Iranian weapons going to Israel’s enemies, Hezbollah and Hamas. In December 2004, a lead editorial in the Weekly Standard by Bill Kristol emphasized that the United States had an urgent and dire “Syria problem.” “Of course we also have—the world also has—an Iran problem, and a Saudi problem, and lots of other problems,” Kristol explained. “The Iran and Saudi problems may ultimately be more serious than the Syria problem. But the Syria problem is urgent: It is Bashar Assad’s regime that seems to be doing more than any other, right now, to help Baathists and terrorists kill Americans in the central front of the war on terror.” It was thus essential for the United States “to get serious about dealing with Syria as part of winning in Iraq, and in the broader Middle East.” [25]
But while Syria was a danger because of its connection to Iran and proximity to Israel, Iran was seen as the major danger. In May 2005, Richard Perle was the major attraction of AIPAC’s (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) annual conference in Washington with his call for an attack on Iran. The danger of Iran also was featured in an AIPAC multimedia show, “Iran’s Path to the Bomb.” The Washington Post’s Dana Milbank described the Disneyesque multimedia show: “The exhibit, worthy of a theme park, begins with a narrator condemning the International Atomic Energy Agency for being ‘unwilling to conclude that Iran is developing nuclear weapons’ (it had similar reservations about Iraq) and the Security Council because it ‘has yet to take up the issue.’ In a succession of rooms, visitors see flashing lights and hear rumbling sounds as Dr. Seuss-like contraptions make yellowcake uranium, reprocess plutonium, and pop out nuclear warheads like so many gallons of hummus for an AIPAC conference.”[26]
Ken Timmerman -- Osama in Iran ?
Ken Timmerman — Osama in Iran ?
New neoconservative publications in 2005 also pushed for stronger measures against Iran. In Countdown to Crisis: The Coming Nuclear Showdown With Iran, Kenneth Timmerman, a member of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affair’s (JINSA) advisory board and executive director of the Foundation for Democracy in Iran, claimed that Iran had collaborated with Al Qaeda in plotting the September 11 terror attacks, and was currently harboring Osama bin Laden. [27] Timmerman also was one of the authors of the study “Launch Regional Initiatives,” published by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) at the end of November 2005. In the section on Iran, the publication portrayed the Islamic regime as America’s irreconcilable enemy with whom détente was impossible. It suggested a number of militant measures for the United States to take in order to bring about regime change: “The United States must wage total political war against the Islamofascists in Tehran, both inside Iran and from the outside. This war should be designed to keep the Iranian regime off balance (including, where necessary, through the use of covert means), with the ultimate goal of undermining its control.”[28] Most of the proposed American efforts to undermine the existing Iranian regime did not involve a direct American military attack, but the latter was not ruled out to stop Iran’s nuclear program: “The stakes are sufficiently high that we must also be prepared to use military force—alone if necessary, with others if practicable—to disrupt Iran’s known and suspected nuclear operations.” [29]
One way to weaken Iran would be to fragment it into various groups—in line with Oded Yinon’s plan for the Middle East. This seems to have been the underlying theme of the October 26, 2005 AEI conference entitled “The Unknown Iran: Another Case for Federalism?,” moderated by AEI resident scholar Michael A. Ledeen. The announcement for the conference stated that “few realize that Persians likely constitute a minority of the Iranian population. The majority is composed of Azerbaijanis, Kurds, Baluchis, Turkmen, and the Arabs of Khuzistan / al-ahwaz. In the event the current regime falls, these groups will undoubtedly play an important role in their country’s future.” Individuals speaking at the conference included ethnic separatists.[30]
As time went by and violence against the American occupation of Iraq continued, the American people were becoming opposed to the military endeavor and in early 2006 the US Congress established a special, independent, bipartisan commission, the Iraq Study Group, which would not only provide a solution for Iraq but also deal with the broader Middle East. Since the study group was headed by James Baker (a close confidant of the elder Bush) and comprised other establishment luminaries, neocons realized, and various leaks confirmed, that it would propose to extract US forces from Iraq (though in a gradual fashion), which would militate against American efforts to induce regime change in additional Middle Eastern countries, especially Iran. Moreover, it was revealed that the Iraq Study Group sought to establish US engagement with Iran in order to bring about stability to Iraq and the entire Middle East by diplomatic means—stability being the foreign policy establishment’s fundamental goal.
Frederick Kagan and General Jack Keane AEITo prevent the Iraq Study Group’s ideas from reaching fruition, a counter proposal was developed at the neocon American Enterprise Institute (AEI) , its principal developers being Frederick Kagan and General Jack Keane, former vice chief of staff of the U.S. Army, which called for a drastic increase in American forces, and thus became commonly known as the “surge.”
Although the “surge” was opposed by most members of Congress, military leaders, the foreign policy establishment and a majority of the American people, President Bush nonetheless adopted it in early 2007.
After a rocky start, the surge strategy would bring about a significant reduction in the violent resistance in Iraq by the end of 2007, and thus proved to be a significant political victory for President Bush and the neocons, being touted as having been a great success even today. However, the original rationale for the surge was to reduce the intense ethno-sectarian fissiparous divisions in Iraq, thus unifying the country under the national government. This clearly did not take place.
The surge, in fact, militated against national unity because a fundamental US tactic was to strengthen local Sunni tribal leaders to fight the Al Qaeda insurgents, which included providing them training and arms. The tribal leaders effectively fought Al Qaeda but, in the process, set up their own little fiefdoms independent of central government control. Marc Lynch, a Middle East specialist at George Washington University, observed in the fall of 2007 that this approach was leading to a “warlord state” in Iraq with “power devolved to local militias, gangs, tribes and power-brokers, with a purely nominal central state.”[31] And it is just those organized and armed Sunni groups who have now joined with ISIS in the effort to overthrow the pro-Shiite Maliki government of Iraq, which had tried to bring them under its control. In fact, it now seems apparent that the ease by which ISIS swept through predominantly Sunni northwest Iraq was largely due to the fact that the Iraqi army there was primarily composed of Sunnis, who were unwilling to fight on behalf of a pro-Shiite regime, and that the local inhabitants saw ISIS as a force that would liberate them from any existing or attempted domination by the Shiite-run central government in Baghdad.
President Obama sends John Kerry to Middle East, to Handle Iraq Crisis
President Obama sends John Kerry to Middle East, to Handle Iraq Crisis
Despite President Obama and Secretary of State Kerry’s call for an inclusive, non-sectarian national government, it is not apparent if this could be established without antagonizing one or the other of the major ethno-sectarian groups. The idea that the United States would send in enough troops to suppress the Sunni insurrection and compel the central government to accept significant representation and input from the Sunnis– in short, a government that did not represent majoritarian rule–would be unacceptable to many Shiites.
Efforts to establish some type of balanced government representing both the interests of Shiites and Sunnis (even leaving aside existing Kurdish autonomy) would be apt to lead to insurrections by groups, and likely require the forceful imposition of a US controlled puppet government. This would seem to be in line with much of the neocons’ thinking, but would not be acceptable to the American people, and also probably unacceptable to the American foreign policy establishment, considering the difficulty involved in achieving such a Herculean task and the regional hostility, with its concomitant negative effects on American regional interests, it would inflame.
From the American standpoint, the simplest and least expensive way, in both blood and treasure, to establish stability would be to allow for Iranian and Syrian intervention on behalf of the Maliki government–or another government that reflected the will of the Shiite majority. As pointed out earlier in this essay, this is one result that the Israeli government and the neocons seek to prevent, perceiving ,as they do, Iran as Israel’s major enemy.
The Muslim population of Iraq is approximately 60-65 percent Arab Shi'a, 15-20 percent Arab Sunni and 17 percent Kurdish. Iraqi Kurds are mostly Sunni, with about 10% being Shi'a Faili Kurds.
The Muslim population of Iraq is approximately 60-65 percent Arab Shi’a, 15-20 percent Arab Sunni and 17 percent Kurdish. Iraqi Kurds are mostly Sunni, with about 10% being Shi’a Faili Kurds.
And this approach would not be guaranteed of success since it would likely lead to greater support for the Sunni insurgents from Saudi Arabia and the Gulf emirates. So far, the Saudis and the Gulf sheikhdoms have provided intermittent support for radical Islamist groups such as ISIS, which they perceive as a very effective weapon against their Shiite and other non-Sunni foes (e.g. Assad’s regime in Syria) in the region, but which they also fear because of the latter’s threat to their own regimes, which the radical Islamists consider to be pro-Western, corrupt, and insufficiently Islamic. Thus the Saudis and the Gulf states try to make sure that radical Islamist groups such as ISIS do not become too powerful.
This restraint would likely be much lessened if the Syrian and Iranian involvement intensified. It is likely that such a development would lead to a stalemate in Iraq, with the ISIS-led coalition of Sunni forces retaining control of the Sunni heartland in northern and western Iraq while the Shiite-dominated central government would remain in control of the predominately Shiite areas in the eastern and southern parts of the country, including Baghdad. This would likely be an unstable situation with undefined borders where continuous military skirmishing would be the norm, which would also involve the Kurds in some areas. Moreover, it is quite likely that internecine fighting would take place within these areas themselves, as different groups would contend for power among themselves.
The result of almost all these aforementioned scenarios–consisting of continued Sunni-Shiite regional warfare, along with Iraq’s fragmentation–certainly is in line with Yinon’s view of Israel’s security. And the neocons who have been pushing for greater American intervention can always maintain that any chaos and violence in the region is due to the fact that their advice to retain large numbers of American troops in Iraq and “educate” (control) the Iraqi leaders was not followed.
A number of commentators have compared the situation in Iraq to the well-known old English nursery rhyme for children, “Humpty Dumpty ” (usually portrayed as a squat, egg-like being), who falls, breaking into pieces, and can’t be put back together. However, to be a more accurate analogy, the “Humpty Dumpty” nursery rhyme would need a revision so as to read something like the following:
Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall,
Humpty Dumpty was pushed and made to fall,
And all the king’s horses and all the king’s men,
Couldn’t put Humpty back together again.
(And those who pushed him seem to prefer him as he is now.)
Transparent Cabal maidhcStephen J. Sniegoski, Ph.D. earned his doctorate in American history,with a focus on American foreign policy, at the University of Maryland. His focus on the neoconservative involvement in American foreign policy antedates September 11,and his first major work on the subject, “The War on Iraq: Conceived in Israel” was published February 10, 2003, more than a month before the American attack. He is the author of “The Transparent Cabal: The Neoconservative Agenda, War in the Middle East, and the National Interest of Israel”. He can be contacted at: hectorpv@comcast.net.
STEPHEN SNIEGOSKI SPEAKS AT: NATIONAL SUMMIT TO REASSESS THE U.S.-ISRAEL “SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP”
[2] The Washington Report on the Middle East provided the following description of Israel Shahak’s writing: “Shahak gained a wide international audience through his regular “Translations from the Hebrew Press”, which gave the non-Hebrew speaking world a unique glimpse into the extreme and racist rhetoric about Arabs, Palestinians and Jewish supremacy that characterizes much of ‘mainstream’ discourse in Israel. The translations also clarified Israeli strategic thinking and policy goals in a manner that directly contradicted official ‘hasbara‘ (propaganda), which presented Israel as a besieged state struggling only for peace and survival. Shahak´s writings continuously exposed and denounced Israel as an expansionist, chauvinist and racist state bent on the domination of the surrounding Arab peoples, especially the Palestinians.” http://www.bintjbeil.com/E/occupation/shahak2.html
[3] The Zionist Plan for the Middle East, translated and edited by Israel Shahak, Belmont, Mass.: Association of Arab-American University Graduates, Inc., 1982.
[9] David Wurmser, Coping with Crumbling States a Western and Israeli Balance of Power Strategy for the Levant, Washington, DC: Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies (IASPS), 1996.
[11] Stephen J. Sniegoski, The Transparent Cabal: The Neoconservative Agenda, War in the Middle East, and the National Interest of Israel, (Norfolk, Va., Enigma, 2008), pp. 73-75, 337-38.
[31] Jim Lobe, “Fears grow of post-‘surge’ woes,” Asia Times, November 22, 2007, http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IK22Ak07.html _________________ --
'Suppression of truth, human spirit and the holy chord of justice never works long-term. Something the suppressors never get.' David Southwell
http://aangirfan.blogspot.com http://aanirfan.blogspot.com
Martin Van Creveld: Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: "Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother."
Martin Van Creveld: I'll quote Henry Kissinger: "In campaigns like this the antiterror forces lose, because they don't win, and the rebels win by not losing."
Joined: 25 Jul 2005 Posts: 18335 Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
Posted: Thu Dec 03, 2015 10:21 pm Post subject: Re: Nafeez Ahmed - Greater Israel: The Yinon Plan
Bit of an archive this
It's no longer on Nafeez' blog
kbo234 wrote:
The Four-Frontal War: Covert Operations Escalate in Middle East and the Horn of Africa Civil War Looms in Iraq
http://nafeez.blogspot.com/2006/08/four-frontal-war-covert-operations. html
"US Generals forsee Iraqi partition" was the unnerving headline penned by Guardian journalists Julian Borger, Ewen MacAskill and Richard Norton Taylor yesterday. They quote the leaked memo to Prime Minister Tony Blair written by William Patey, Britain's outgoing Ammbassador to Iraq, which revealed that "a low intensity civil war and a de facto division of Iraq" is currently more probable than the stabilization of the country. His comments were shockingly confirmed by General John Abizaid, the head of US Central Command, and General Peter Pace, the Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, both of whom warned of the imminent probability of Iraq's slide to civil war.
While the media debate has shifted onto whether or not a civil war is imminent in Iraq -- and it's obvious from the comments of the above informed observers that it is -- unnnoticed and barely reported is the compelling evidence that some sectarian violence has been deliberately fostered and orchestrated by US and British military intelligence. When Iraqi police found "explosives and a remote-control detonator... in the car of the two SAS special forces men" disguised as Arabs, last year in September, veteran war correspondent John Pilger in the New Statesman was one of the few to note the odd details. "What were they planning to do...?" with the explosives, he wondered: "Although reported initially by the Times and the Mail, all mention of the explosives allegedly found in the SAS men's unmarked Cressida vanished from the news. ... the SAS men, disguised as al-Sadr's followers, were planning an attack on Basra ahead of an important religious festival."
Orchestrating the Terrorist Insurgency?
I had written in some detail about this event at the time last year -- the only news outlet that would touch the story was the progressive online newsmagazine Raw Story. But this was not the only event suggesting that American and British military intelligence operatives have been playing a double-game in Iraq. Iraqi nuclear scientist Dr. Imad Khudduri, who worked with the Iraqi Atomic Energy Commission from 1968 to 1998 when he left the country, reports that a driver in Baghdad had his license confiscated by US army officers at a check-point. They told him "to report to an American military camp near Baghdad airport for interrogation" to retrieve his license. When he got to the camp, he was questioned for 30 min before being released. As for his license, the US army officers told him it had been sent for processing to al-Khadimiya police station, where he had to hurry to pick it up before the responsible officer left his shift. "The driver did leave in a hurry, but was soon alarmed with a feeling that his car was driving as if carrying a heavy load", reports Dr. Khudduri.
"... he also became suspicious of a low flying helicopter that kept hovering overhead, as if trailing him. He stopped the car and inspected it carefully. He found nearly 100 kilograms of explosives hidden in the back seat and along the two back doors. The only feasible explanation for this incident is that the car was indeed booby trapped by the Americans and intended for the al-Khadimiya Shiite district of Baghdad. The helicopter was monitoring his movement and witnessing the anticipated ‘hideous attack by foreign elements’.
"The same scenario was repeated in Mosul, in the north of Iraq. A car was confiscated along with the driver’s license. He did follow up on the matter and finally reclaimed his car but was told to go to a police station to reclaim his license. Fortunately for him, the car broke down on the way to the police station. The inspecting car mechanic discovered that the spare tire was fully laden with explosives."
Going back to my own research on this, in my Raw Story report just under a year ago, I noted two important points:
1. Press reports as well as official statements from al-Qaeda in Iraq suggested that al-Qaeda had teamed up with Saddam Hussein's old Ba'ath Party loyalists. Iraqi intelligence and US military officials have known for years that al-Qaeda operatives from outside Iraq had "formed an alliance with former intelligence agents of Saddam Hussein".
2. Pakistani military sources told the Asia Times in February 2005 that the US has "resolved to arm small militias backed by US troops and entrenched in the population," consisting of "former members of the Ba'ath Party". In other words, al-Qaeda's latest Ba'athist recruits undergoing what the London Times called "Al-Qaeda-style training, such as how to make remote-controlled bombs" were getting themselves "entrenched" in the civilian environment while also being covertly armed and supported by elements of the US military. The US had procured “Pakistan-manufactured weapons, including rifles, rocket-propelled grenade launchers, ammunition, rockets and other light weaponry.” A Pakistani military analyst noted that the “arms could not be destined for the Iraqi security forces because US arms would be given to them.” It is difficult to avoid the conclusions that US military intelligence has actively implemented a series of covert operations designed to manipulate and arm the terrorist insurgency, thus contributing to the deterioration of security.
Neo-Con Plan: The Dissolution of Iraq
But why? The dissolution of Iraq has long been an essential feature of hardline Israeli strategic thinking. In 1982, the Hebrew journal Kivunim -- the official organ of the World Zionist Organization -- published an article by former Israeli Foreign Ministry official Oded Yinon, who observed that:
"Iraq, rich in oil on the one hand and internally torn on the other, is guaranteed as a candidate for Israel’s targets. Its dissolution is even more important for us than that of Syria... In the short run it is Iraqi power which constitutes the greatest threat to Israel... Every kind of inter-Arab confrontation will assist us in the short run and will shorten the way to the more important aim of breaking up Iraq into denominations as in Syria and in Lebanon. In Iraq, a division into provinces along ethnic/religious lines as in Syria during Ottoman times is possible. So, three (or more) states will exist around the three major cities: Basra, Baghdad and Mosul, and Shi’ite areas in the south will separate from the Sunni and Kurdish north."
The fragmentation of Iraq, in other words, is an integral part of Zionist grand strategy, a strategy that is staunchly supported by the neoconservatives in the White House.
Sources close to the incumbent Iraqi government fear that the drastic deterioration of security in Iraq will be exploited by the Anglo-American coalition to dissolve the fragile parliament and declare a state of emergency, thus permanently sealing the occupation. It is difficult to discern whether this specific scenario is plausible, but there can be no doubt that policymakers in Washington and London want to manipulate the situation to ensure long-term control over Iraqi oil reserves.
Nuclear-ization of Mid-East War
As covert operations to fracture Iraq are escalating, the humanitarian crisis in Lebanon is deepening. Evidence mounts that Israel is planning a wider regional war using nuclear weapons. As ceasefire negotiations continued last week, the Israeli Committee for a Middle East Free from Atomic, Biological & Chemical Weapons reported (5.8.06) that:
"The Government of Israel has recently purchased from the United States bunker-busting bombs (GBU-2, for use in its war in Lebanon. These bombs contain depleted uranium -- a carcinogenic substance that spreads in the form of a toxic and radioactive dust, which enters the lungs and bones and is especially harmful to babies and young children."
The invention of bunker-busting bombs are a brazen attempt to make nuclear devices a viable weapons of warfare without automatically implying Mutually Assured Destruction. In late May 2003, at President Bush’s insistence, Congress voted to end the 10-year ban on the development of tactical nuclear weapons -- also known as ‘mini-nukes’ or 'bunker-busting' bombs - that range up to a third the size of the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima in 1945. The new nuclear devices are designed to “produce small amounts of radiation, earth-penetrating weapons to attack underground bunkers, larger devices with greater radiation effects and weapons to destroy chemical and biological agents.” These measures conflict with US treaty obligations -- the US is a signatory to both the comprehensive test ban treaty (although has not ratified it) and the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.
Despite being designed to concentrate the impact in order to limit the nuclear fallout to the intended target, tactical nuclear weapons remain extremely dangerous and inherently indiscriminate -- and of course far more devastating for civilian populations than conventional weapons. For example, according to Council on Foreign Relations scientist Robert Nelson in Physics Today, “anyone within the roughly 3W0.6 km2 area covered by the base surge would receive a fatal dose of radiation. (W is the explosive energy yield in kilotons of TNT.).” Estimating a typical third-world urban population density of 6000/km2, this implies that a single “1-kt weapon would kill tens of thousands”, whereas a single more powerful “100-kt weapon would kill hundreds of thousands of people.”
Nukes, in other words, are still nukes.
Have No Doubt: They Want War... on Four Fronts
Israeli's acquirement of tactical nuclear weapons within the last few days is therefore of urgent concern, and indicates that the regime is stepping-up its planning for an impending wider regional conflict. It must be remembered that Israel has long planned this war. The "clean break" strategy advocated a decade ago by Vice President Dick Cheney's Middle East adviser David Wurmser -- which "is progressing as planned" according to Pentagon whistleblower Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatowski PhD -- sees a conflict with Lebanon as an integral dimension of a war to expand Israeli influence over Syria and Iran: "An effective approach, and one with which American can sympathize, would be if Israel seized the strategic initiative along its northern borders by engaging Hizballah, Syria, and Iran, as the principal agents of aggression in Lebanon."
As the US, UK, and other powers scuttle around shouting for a ceasefire agreement, according to former senior advisor to President Clinton Sidney Blumenthal, neither the US nor Israel want peace:
"The National Security Agency is providing signal intelligence to Israel to monitor whether Syria and Iran are supplying new armaments to Hezbollah ... neoconservatives on Vice President Dick Cheney's national security staff and Elliott Abrams, the neoconservative senior director for the Near East on the National Security Council, are prime movers behind sharing NSA intelligence with Israel, and they have discussed Syrian and Iranian supply activities as a potential pretext for Israeli bombing of both countries... The neoconservatives are described as enthusiastic about the possibility of using NSA intelligence as a lever to widen the conflict between Israel and Hezbollah and Israel and Hamas into a four-front war."
The ceasefire rhetoric is being used deliberately by Anglo-American and Israeli officials to manufacture a justification for opening multiple theatres of war in the region. As Robert Fisk at the Independent observes, the draft resolution is absurdly pro-Israel, failing to even call on Israeli troops to withdraw from Lebanon, and guaranteed to be rejected by Hizbullah as merely an exercise in imperial hubris.
Carving Lebanon?
Meanwhile, US efforts are currently designed to facilitate the political divisions in Lebanon. While supporting Israel's invasion of Lebanon, and condemning Hizbullah's resistance, the Bush administration is simultaneously planning "to help train and equip the Lebanese army so it can take control of all of the nation's territory". The plan is motivated by Hizbollah's growing popularity as the only force in Lebanon capable of attempting to defend its people.
Indeed, the strategic planning behind the "clean break" onslaught now in motion was already in place in the 1980s and is mentioned in the Kivunim article cited previously, which advises that: "Lebanon’s total dissolution into five provinces serves as a precedent for the entire Arab world including Egypt, Syria, Iraq and the Arabian peninsula and is already following that track." Moreover, this is part of a broader process of reconfiguration of the entire Middle East. "The entire Arabian peninsula is a natural candidate for dissolution due to internal and external pressures, and the matter is inevitable especially in Saudi Arabia", the article continues.
"Low Intensity Warfare" in Iran and Somalia
It should not come as a surprise then to learn that the War on Iran has, in fact, already begun -- as early as June 2005. Former US marine and chief UN weapons inspector in Iraq, Scott Ritter, revealed citing confidential sources secret US military flights in Iran “using pilotless drones and other, more sophisticated, capabilities.” The CIA’s Directorate of Operations was financing and directing the Mujahadeen el-Khalq (MEK), the notorious Iranian opposition group (formerly run by Saddam Hussein’s intelligence services) still categorized by the State Department as a “terrorist organization.” CIA-sponsored MEK terrorist operations currently include “remote bombings in Iran of the sort that the Bush administration condemns on a daily basis inside Iraq.” Additionally, the US military had prepared a base of operations in neighbouring Azerbaijan “for a massive military presence” designed to facilitate a “major land-based campaign” to conquer Tehran. CIA paramilitary operatives and US Special Operations units are training with Azerbaijan forces to form special units capable of “operating inside Iran for the purpose of intelligence gathering, direct action, and mobilizing indigenous opposition to the Mullahs in Tehran.”
Covert operations are escalating in other potentially oil-rich regions. In February this year, CIA planes reportedly "delivered large amounts of money and guns" to three warlords in Somalia who dominated Mogadishu. "They named themselves the Alliance for the Restoration of Peace and Counter-Terrorism" and began fighting against the Union of Islamic Courts (UIC), a loose legal federation of Somali clans supported "by local businessmen, to restore order by using religious law to settle disputes and punish criminals. Each clan's court has jurisdiction only over its own clan members, but it was a start on rebuilding a law-abiding society." The BBC describes the UIC as "a grassroots movement" which has "become increasingly popular among city residents and the business community desperate to see an end to the rule of the gun." An initiative that Washington was not happy with. In late July this year, the US "let Ethiopia send troops in to protect the isolated 'Interim Government' in Baidoa. That probably means renewed war, and across borders this time... Just when Somalia was about to escape from its long nightmare, a new and worse one has appeared: the prospect of a war that would consume the entire Horn of Africa."
Although Somali clan leaders have expressed the desire to cooperate with Washington's demands on alleged al-Qaeda terrorists, Washington suddenly seems less interested in tangible peaceful solutions. UIC clan elders reportedly "met with US Ambassador William Bellamy in Nairobi, Kenya and promised to cooperate in the hunt for al-Qaeda terrorists."
They even "signed an agreement with the US ambassador that if they tell us exactly where these men are in Somalia, our clan militia will go and capture them and turn them over." Since then, the US has been surprisingly silent about the location of the alleged terrorists -- but still wants to ignite a war that could engulf the whole Horn of Africa. A spokesperson for the US embassy had "no comment" on the meetings.
US interests in Somalia are rather familiar, and have remained much the same since the 1992 Bush Snr. invasion called "Operation Restore Hope". At that time the Los Angeles Times revealed: “Far beneath the surface of the tragic drama of Somalia, four major US oil companies are quietly sitting on a prospective fortune in exclusive concessions to explore and exploit tens of millions of acres of the Somali countryside. That land, in the opinion of geologists and industry sources, could yield significant amounts of oil and natural gas if the US led military mission can restore peace to the impoverished East African nation.” As the Independent adds, "The oil giants’ exclusive concessions to explore and drill [are] worthless in the absence of a viable government to enforce their claims.” The UIC, as an increasingly popular, largely Islamic Sufi federation, fundamentally threatens to permanently prevent the retrieval of these exclusive concessions to US oil corporations.
Concluding Comment
It seems that the War Machine is now in full-swing. US covert operations to control strategic resources are exploding in Iraq, Iran and Somalia. Western diplomatic, military, intelligence and financial maneuverings are carefully positioning Israeli policy to fracture the conflict with Lebanon in a conflict on four (or more) fronts. Tactical nukes are being prepared for imminent use, increasing the probability of a full-scale regional conflagaration.
Meanwhile, Dick Cheney is still hiding somewhere in his bunker, and Western leaders continue to promise us that they only want peace.
Avi Dichter, the former Israeli Minister of Internal Security, former head of Shin Bet (Shabak) from 2000-2005, and current member of the Knesset, issued an ominous speech to the Israeli National Security Research Center on May 26, 2010. Dichter told the audience:
“We have achieved in Iraq more than we expected and planned. Iraq has vanished as a military force and as a unified country. Our strategic option is to keep it divided. Our strategic goal is to not allow Iraq to take its regional and Arabic role back. Iraq must stay divided and isolated from its regional environment. Nobody can ignore what we have achieved in this field. Iraq can never be the same Iraq before 2003 (7).”
——————————————————————— ——–
“If you take out Saddam’s regime, I guarantee you that it will have enormous positive reverberations on the region.”
Benjamin Netanyahu, testifying before U.S. House Government Reform & Oversight Committee – Sept. 12, 2002
——————————————————————— ——–
James Morris mentioned Dr. Stephen Sniegoski’s article (linked above) in following Press TV interview:
Failed US invasion of Iraq resulted in ISIL: Interview with James Morris
Additional on Israeli Likudnik Oded Yinon plan the Zionist neocons put in play for the Mideast in write-up by Dr. Stephen Sniegoski at following URL about James Morris’ appearance on RT’s ‘CrossTalk’ about Syria:
Israel Lobby Pushes for US Action Against the Syrian Government (to weaken Iran):
In his book, “The WikiLeaks Files: The World According to US Empire”, Julian Assange claims that United States had called Saudi Arabia and Egypt to promote sectarian conflict in Syria by destabilizing its government:
The following is my new article “The Mainstream Media, ISIS, and Iraq War Déjà Vu,” which shows how the mainstream media has been presenting a somewhat attenuated version of neocon war propaganda that is driving the US back to war in Iraq:
Pat Buchanan also mentioned USS Liberty cover-up in above linked ‘Whose War?’ article as James Morris mentioned it (along with John McCain and his Father’s ongoing association with such in his ‘Russia Today’ appearance linked above as one can see him confront John McCain about such in San Diego on Memorial Day 2012 in following youtube as well):
Traitor John McCain confronted about USS Liberty Navy cover-up and Media Accomplices:
ISIS Atrocities in Iraq Represent the Catastrophic Failure of Bush Doctrine and Neoconservative Foreign Policy (pushed by neocons shills like John McCain and others):
Dr. Stephen Sniegoski spoke at the The “National Summit to Reassess the U.S.-Israel ‘Special Relationship’”in DC on March 7th, 2014 (see video links at following URL):
See Dr. Stephen Sniegoski’s appearance on Press TV about his ‘The Transparent Cabal’ book via informationclearinghouse.info link at top of http://tinyurl.com/thetransparentcabal
CIA’s Mike Scheuer on Israel, Iraq war and other US interventions as Al Qaeda terrorism motivation:
Eric Margolis spot on yet again with following one:
THE MOTHER OF ALL BLOWBACK
30 August 2014
President Barack Obama is being lambasted by US Republicans for admitting that “we don’t have a strategy yet” for dealing with the rise of the militant group, ISIS, or Islamic State, as it’s now known.
Given that the US had made an unbelievable mess of its Mideast policies, the president is right to pause and think, something his shoot –from- the- lip Republican critics rarely do. They are demanding the US attack both Iraq and Syria without asking “what then oh brave Washington warriors?” These are the Republicans who ardently supported George Bush’s catastrophic invasion and destruction of Iraq.
The problem is that too many cooks in Washington are spoiling its Mideast soup. In his magnificent new book, “The Sleepwalkers,” Prof. Christopher Clark of Cambridge describes how World War I was in part ignited by small numbers of anti-German officials in France, Russia, Serbia and Britain who often undermined their own government’s moderate policies.
The same process occurred under President George W. Bush when cabals of neocon officials in the Pentagon, State Department, CIA and media drove the US into a calamitous war whose negative effects are still being felt.
Today, other pro-war cliques in official Washington are at it again, each trying to dominate policy. Add a bunch of pro-Israel billionaires who have bought both the Republican and Democratic parties, apparently including Hillary Clinton, the front-runner for the Democratic nomination for president.
President Obama has always found it extremely difficult to impose his will on all these different factions, even more now that he’s a lame duck. He has repeatedly made clear that he wants to avoid any new wars, but while allowing drone attacks to increase.
Both party politics and the need to shore up America’s shaky Mideast imperium – which I call the American Raj – are pushing Obama towards military action.
So we see small numbers of US troops being sent back to Iraq – enough men to get the nation stuck in a new conflict but not enough to make a major difference. In short, the worst of both worlds.
Now, Obama is being pressed to attack Syria, an idea so crazy it takes the breath away. Obama is largely responsible for the current disaster in Syria – nearly 200,000 dead and three million refugees. Once thriving Syria, the real heart of the Arab world, has been devastated. President Vlad Putin may not save Obama this time.
The US sponsored and armed the uprising against the Assad regime, which had brutally ruled Syria for 43 years. France, Britain, Saudi Arabia and other Arab nations backed the campaign to overthrow Assad, as a way to damage Iran, Syria’s principal ally. The result: a bloody war of attrition that is slowly being won by Damascus.
Worse, the western intervention in Syria produced what is known in the intelligence business as “blowback”- in this case the Mother of all blowback.
The Syrian jihadist supported by the western powers and, for some baffling reason, Turkey, ran amok. A previously unknown band of gunmen known as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant were trained and armed in Jordan by CIA, then turned lose on Syria.
ISIL became ISIS, then the by now notorious Islamic State(IS) which has been rampaging across northern and central Iraq. What makes IS so effective is that the major portion of its leaders and soldiers are veterans of President Saddam Hussein’s army, notably the Republican Guard. With IS is the last surviving Saddam insider, Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri.
When the US first invaded Iraq, Saddam predicted it would face the “Mother of all battles.” Westerners laughed. Eleven years later, the laughter has been silenced. Iraq continues to fight on and it is no longer safe for foreign oil companies. Saddam’s revenge.
The Islamic State is the perfect example of Nietzche’s over-used maxim, “what does not kill us makes us stronger.” It has risen from the ruins of Iraq and Syria to challenge the American Raj.
“Light” bombing by the US in Iraq won’t stop the IS. Pentagon chiefs now say US air power and special forces must go into Syria. This is standard Obama procedure: inching forward and launching trial balloons to test public opinion. But it’s clear the American public does not want new wars no matter what the pro-war media and bought Congress may say.
Joined: 25 Jul 2005 Posts: 18335 Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
Posted: Thu Jul 14, 2016 8:15 am Post subject:
The Transparent Cabal
by Stephen J. Sniegoski
FOREWORD by former Congressman Paul Findley
INTRODUCTION by Prof. Paul Gottfried, Ph.D.
The NEOCONSERVATIVE AGENDA, WAR IN THE MIDDLE EAST, AND THE NATIONAL INTEREST OF ISRAEL
“Absolutely essential.”
—Mark Bruzonsky, former Washington rep., World Jewish Congress; founder, InternationalPeace.org
When my book 'They Dare to Speak Out' was first published 25 years ago, I might have hoped, if I had thought about it at the time, that the pervasive and inordinate power of what is known as the “Israel lobby” might have been diminished somewhat in this country by now, for the good of the United States as well as that of Israel. After all, during those years Israel has become a prosperous, self-sustaining nation, and though surrounded by potentially hostile neighbors is far and away the most militarily powerful state in the region. And in reality, with a stockpile of atomic weapons reliably estimated to number in the hundreds, is among the four or five most powerful nations in the world.
Yet in spite of this, the lobby has not seen fit to curtail its influence. In fact, if anything, it has expanded it; and today exerts an even greater influence on both U. S. domestic and foreign policy than ever before. And it is the intertwining of the power of the various factions of the lobby with the predominantly pro-Israel neoconservative forces in our government that helped produce what Professor Richard Norton of Boston University called a “monumentally ill-informed and counterproductive” decision on the part of President Bush to invade and occupy the sovereign nation of Iraq. But as the American public’s disenchantment with the war has grown, the remaining supporters (dwindling though they may be) continue to push for continued involvement in Iraq. For example, a pro-war group called Freedom’s Watch sponsored a $15-million ad campaign in the late summer of 2007 targeting Republican congressmen who were beginning to go soft on their support for the war. Now the fact that Ari Fleisher, former Bush White House spokesman, is a member of the board at Freedom’s Watch would be of little or no interest here except for this curious detail: As headlined by the Jewish Telegraphic Agency (JTA), lead wire service for Jewish news, the “Pro-Surge Group [Freedom’s Watch] Is Almost All Jewish.” In fact, according to JTA, four out of five members of the board are Jews, as are half of its donors.
This in no way means to imply that there is anything intrinsically wrong with Freedom’s Watch wanting to continue support for the war in Iraq. That’s their choice. But in the overall context of this volume, it is the motivation for that support that merits comment. Author Philip Weiss, a selfdescribed progressive Jew,” maintains that “it is no coincidence that the biter-enders [war supporters] draw on heavy Jewish support” (The American Conservative, Oct. 8, 2007). These supporters of Israel, according to Weiss, have managed to convince themselves, and the current administration, that the United States is in the same war against terror as Israel is. And it is this same conviction that, in my view, also drives the efforts of the Israel lobby and the neoconservatives – to the potential detriment of the United States.
Details of the role played by the most hard-line component of the Israel lobby in leading us to war are found in this scrupulously researched and referenced book written by Dr. Stephen Sniegoski. The Transparent Cabal: The Neoconservative Agenda, War in the Middle East and the National Interest of Israel deals, in its own unique way, with themes also treated by two recent best-selling books. With rarely seen candor, Jimmy Carter’s Palestine Peace or Apartheid and Mearsheimer and Walt’s The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy also deal in different ways with the results of lobby/neocon influence at home as well as on the ground in Israel. And, as we have sadly come to expect, they came under attack from the usual suspects as being anti-Semitic.
The same fate is likely to befall Dr. Sniegoski and his equally candid book. Which is too bad, because to the objective reader it can no way be seen as either anti-Jewish or anti-Israeli. In fact, Dr. Sniegoski goes out of his way to make it clear that the neocon movement did not single-handedly compel the United States to embark on war with Iraq. Support for that aspect of the neocon agenda from a number of other key groups was both necessary and instrumental for bringing it to fruition. In addition, neither the neoconser vative movement nor the Israel lobby are entirely Jewish. Many pro-Israel groups, for example, are found among what the media generally term the religious right,” and these tend to be mainly the Christian Zionists. (The term Christian Zionist, of course, is somewhat of a misnomer; they are more Zionist than Christian.) Moreover, in spite of charges to the contrary, the term “neocon” is not a codeword for “Jew.” But the fact is, as author Philip Weiss points out, the neoconservatives originated as a largely Jewish movement in the 1970s “in good part out of concern for Israel’s security.”
On the other hand, though the Bush Administration hawks that argued for war had a goodly number of Jews among them (many of whom had very close political and financial connections to Israel), one cannot ignore the non-Jewish actors, among whom we might mention Vice President Cheney, former Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, Colin Powell, Condoleeza Rice, William Bennet, and of course, the President himself, in the ill-fated decision to go to war.
At the same time, a fear of being smeared with the “anti-Semite” label should not, and does not, prohibit Dr. Sniegoski from pointing out the fact that people – all people – are affected to a greater or lesser degree in their foreign policy views by ethnic and emotional ties to a foreign country (often the country of their forebears). He maintains, and I agree, that the foreign policy views of various ethnic groups – be they German-American, Irish- American, Polish-American, or whatever – are based at least in part on their ethnic identities and loyalties. Can it not be reasonably posited, then, without charges of bigotry and worse, that within the heavy concentration of Jewish neocons in the White House circle of war planners that their identification with Israel helped shape their views on Middle East policy?
Sadly, for well over a half century, with rare exceptions, Jewish influence in the halls of political and governmental power has been off-limits for rational, reasoned discussion. In my 22 years as a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, I became all too painfully aware that there are many in our government – too many, in my view – who are pre-primed to roar approval for all things Israeli, right or wrong; whether it be perpetual financial aid or going to war on their behalf. It was my opposition to this rubber-stamp approval for Israel that ultimately led to my to downfall. In 1980, my opponent charged me with anti-Semitism. Money poured into his campaign from across the country and two years later I was defeated by a narrow margin. In 1984, Senator Charles Percy, a sometimes critic of Israel, also lost his seat. Leaders of the Israel lobby claimed credit for defeating both Percy and me.
I relate these stories for one reason only. Let it be said that neither I nor any of those with whom I associate would ever engage in or endorse anti- Semitism, namely, hatred or persecution of Jews based on their race or religion. But it is a lamentable fact that all too often the calculated, knowingly false charge of anti-Semitism is used as a means of preventing rational discussion even in matters of life and death importance, or to crush political opposition that might otherwise prevail in a reasoned debate. Nowhere can a greater necessity for free and open debate be found than among the ranks of the neoconservatives in the top echelons of our government – many of whom just happen to be Jewish – who have, in my view, led our nation to the brink of disaster.
I hope that this book will motivate the American people to demand fundamental change in the way in which public policy is formed by our elected officials: That is, without fear of intimidation from any ethnic or ideological group, but with only the best interests of our nation in mind.
Looks into the cult of Zionism and the Greater Israel (Rothschild) project...
Israel's Legitimacy? It Doesn't Exist...
The establishment of Israel, was as wrong as slavery, as wrong as the colonists war against Native Americans, or the Nazi's persecution of the Jews. As wrong as the Balfour Declaration upon which Israel's creation was predicated.
Israel's so called war of independence was no different then the above, it was a war of aggression an inhumane act, and an atrocity. The reason Israel has National Security concerns is because of the illegitimate way in which it was created.
Palestine was never a land without a people, for a people without a land, this notion is a myth. Just as the notion that Native Americans were savages, or the myth that blacks are inferior to whites.
Or that the Jewish people are evil, and can not be trusted, or that all Muslims are terrorists. No these non-truths grow out of greed, ignorance, and tribalism, out of trying to justify inhumane acts and human cruelty.
Like the rapist who claims, he was forced to rape, because the woman was dressed provocatively. On some level we are all guilty, we are all complicit or wilfully ignorant, and therefore share in the burden of trying to make things right.
What was done in the past cannot be made to disappear, but reparations could be made. What is presently happening to the Palestinian people, and the continual usurpation of their homeland, could be stopped now.
The international community must acknowledge that Israel has no legitimacy, and therefore must be treated as the apartheid state that it is, one built upon the wrongheaded notions of Zionism, and ethnocracy.
The distinction must be made between Judaism and Zionism, just as one must be made between Christianity, the Crusades and Manifest Destiny. Belief in a God does not give one the right to make war or claim land in his name.
There is a small percentage of very powerful and wealthy people that seek to control the world. They seek to keep you in the dark, about themselves and their exploits.
Keep this in mind as you watch the news, or read the papers, they control what you see and what you hear. In essence they frame your perceptions of reality. It is called perception management, and is epitomized in the way in which Israel's attacks on Gaza are presented.
For example the notion that the Israelis are forced to kill Palestinian children to save Israeli children. This is the same as telling you that black is white or that up is down.
The same as telling you that Israel has the right to exist, and or is a viable democracy and a legitimate state. When in realty it is Israel's legitimacy itself that doesn't exist... _________________ --
'Suppression of truth, human spirit and the holy chord of justice never works long-term. Something the suppressors never get.' David Southwell
http://aangirfan.blogspot.com http://aanirfan.blogspot.com
Martin Van Creveld: Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: "Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother."
Martin Van Creveld: I'll quote Henry Kissinger: "In campaigns like this the antiterror forces lose, because they don't win, and the rebels win by not losing."
Later this month the US will join in an Israeli mock attack on Iran by offering mid-air refuelling to Israeli jets. This is nonsense. Israel has been claiming since 1988 that Iran is months away from developing nuclear weapons. There is no such program. Iran has a nuclear power plant but has neither nuclear weapons nor a program to make them.
If Israel were ever to attack Iran, the response of Iran, Syria and Hezbollah would devastate Israel. It would be akin to Israeli self-immolation. And the US military would become engaged in a hot war they could not win without nuclear weapons.
My mother used to say, “England is always willing to fight to the last American.” We could truthfully revise that for the modern era by saying “Israel is willing to fight to the last American.”
40 years ago, Oded Yinon, an Israeli journalist with ties to the Mossad, first announced the plan to attack Iran. US General Wesley Clark told us that the 2001 Neocon version of the plan was for the US to attack 7 Muslim nations in 5 years. The nations in order were: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and finishing off with Iran.
Of course it should be noted that Israel did 911. They used uninterrupted automatic pilot to guide the planes that hit the North and South Towers of the World Trade Center. Bear with me but younger people were either toddlers or born after 911 so many of them do not know that Tower 7 collapsed in 6.5 seconds and was never hit by a plane. Tower 7 was taken down by a controlled demolition. The only persons with access to plant demolition devices were Lucky Larry Silverstein and his business partner, Frank Lowy. The latter was an Israeli army officer and both men were close friends of Bibi Netanyahu, the Israeli Prime Minister. The explosives were laid in the Towers while Silverstein and Lowy supposedly had crews laying in cables for Internet. The BBC announced the collapse of Tower 7 a full 24 minutes before it did fall down. The BBC said they were told by the then Rothschild owned Reuters.
Lucky Larry collected $4.55 billion on a $14 million anti-terrorism insurance policy. His wife had made an appointment for him to see the doctor on 9-11. No information on why Lowy did not get to work on 9-11. Lucky Larry had 2 adult children who worked at the Trade Center. Both were “late to work” on 9-11.
On September 10, 2001 Donald Rumsfeld announced that neither he nor his Comptroller of the Pentagon rabbi Dov Zakheim could find $2.3 trillion that had gone missing from the DOD. On 9-11 most of the civilian and military auditors who had been assigned to find the missing money were killed by whatever it was that struck the Pentagon that morning. If the Swamp Creatures of DC want us to believe them, they could release to the public the photos taken of the interior of the Pentagon after the attack that day. They dare not because even the dimmest bulb would question the lies we have been told.
The Most Interesting Man In The World - one billion dollars of gold and silver at 2001 prices went missing from the comex vault at WTC Tower 4 the night before 911 explain to me how osama bin laden did that from a hospital bed in afghanistan.
Dr Mark Skidmore has proven that tens of trillions of dollars have been stolen from from the DOD and HUD. He believes that DC Swamp Creatures allowed Wall Street to sell trillions of dollars in US Treasury bonds and stick the proceeds into their deep pockets. Then they allow the taxpayers to pay off the principle and the interest of the bonds.
Currently, the Swamp Creatures are hoping that monkeypox will allow them to scare the public into letting the DC criminals to steal the 2022 elections.
The Swamp Creatures work for the men and women above them.
David Rothkopf, the former Managing Director of Kissinger Associates, said in 2006 in his book Superclass that the world is ruled by 30 Families and their 6,000 Minions. Their near term goal is to get control of the public before the starvation and that pesky hyperinflation drives working people to revolt.
Clearly, the Rothschilds are one of those 30 families.
Currently, their Minions are using fake PCR tests to kill chickens. Bill Gates gave $20 million to the man who crossed Bird flu with Spanish flu, made it more contagious and enabled it to get from the beak into the lungs. Bill Gates is also heavily invested in African Swine flu.
The idea is to make food so unaffordable that working people will demand rationing. It will at first be an app on your cell phone. They will combine that with digital currencies to control your movements and your ability to get paid for work you had done. Under their scheme, if you say something they don’t like, they can freeze your bank account and make it illegal for you to get paid. When we get to the Great Reset, if you are allowed to live that long and they win, then you will have a chip in your brain.
The US has attacked Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria and Libya to protect both Israel and the Dollar. Libya has become a wasteland. The US was kicked out of Afghanistan. Syria is still standing. Hezbollah defeated the Israeli military in 2006. Israeli has been practicing to attack Lebanon ever since to no avail. As far back as 1919 the Israeli Zionists demanded that His Majesty’s Jewish Government include Lebanon in Palestine. They wanted the Litani river and 21 other Lebanese rivers even 103 years ago. In 2006 Israeli dreamed of sending Israeli tanks to the Litani but they were massacred. Hezbollah had mastered the use of anti-tank missiles and the art of digging of underground tunnels to avoid Israeli air power.
500,000 Somalis have died in the Somali Civil War since 1991. Trump pulled out troops but Biden has recently sent some back. As for the Sudan it was in Civil War until 2011 when the South Sudan became independent. The US took over an old French post near Djibouti called Camp Lemonnier. It guards the approach to the Suez Canal.
The last part of Oded Yinon’s pipe dream was to get the US to attack Iran. That is insanity squared.
Iran has Mach 14 missiles. The best the US has is Mach 5.
The US currently has 18 ships including the air craft carrier Nimitz in the Persian Gulf. All of those can easily be sunk.
Any stoppage of oil flowing out of the Persian Gulf would send oil to $500 a barrel which would cripple the economies of NATO countries and most other countries as well. American voters would despise anyone who gave them $15 dollar a gallon gasoline.
The US has 18 bases in Iraq. All of those could be hit by missiles with fuel air explosives.
A fuel air explosive is exploded in 2 stages. The first explosion sends fuel out in all directions. The second explosion 25 milliseconds later ignites the fuel which burns up the oxygen killing all humans in the area of say a circle with a one Km radius. Pro-Iranian militias could attack the survivors taking American hostages.
The Israeli attack against Iran’s nuclear installations would have to take a known path at a known angle of attack. Iran has multiple layers of advanced air defenses. The Iranians could send up drones to fire fuel air explosives at the approaching Israeli jets.
The US and Israel both know that there are no nuclear weapons being built in Iran.
Iran is in the process of attaining full membership in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization which would oblige Russia and China to defend it militarily.
America is losing its proxy war against Russia in the Ukraine. The Chinese at the most recent BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) conference said they want to greatly expand membership. There are lots of emerging nations like Indonesia who would benefit greatly from Debt Cancellation.
Sergey Glazyev is Minister in charge of the Integration and Macroeconomics of the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU). His plan is for all nations to refuse to pay any debt denominated in pounds, dollars, euros and yen. They would establish international currencies backed by commodities, gold or oil. Russia has all three.
One of the nations China invited to join BRICS was Israel so they could cancel their debts in euros, pounds and dollars.
So I guess allowing the Friends of Israel to get us into wars we never needed, to sacrifice our military personnel and to loot our Treasury of tens of trillions of dollars was not sufficient to get Israel to care about us.
I mentioned that Israel did 911.https://vidrebel.wordpress.com/2021/09/10/911-truths/
I mentioned the plan to refuse to pay all debts owed in dollars, pounds, euros and yen. Economic Bloodbath Headed Our Way.https://vidrebel.wordpress.com/2022/05/05/economic-bloodbath-heade d-our-way/
I mentioned monkeypox which the European Centers for Disease Control said came from one of those US biolabs in the Ukraine. Indians in the Canadian province of Nova Scotia developed an herbal cure for smallpox. It is cheap and available on the Internet though some nations do not have health freedom. Read more here:Canadian Indians Cured Smallpox. What About Monkeypox?https://vidrebel.wordpress.com/2022/05/21/canadian-indians-c ured-smallpox-what-about-monkeypox/
I mentioned David Rothkopf wrote the book Superclass in which he said that the world was run by 30 Families and their 6,000 Minions. That was the opening line from: The Boss Wants You Dead:https://vidrebel.wordpress.com/2020/06/08/the-boss-wants-you-dead /
I go on to explain that the 30 Families and the 6,000 Minions stole so much money that they either have to kill you or make good on the pension money they stole.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
, for use in its war in Lebanon. These bombs contain depleted uranium -- a carcinogenic substance that spreads in the form of a toxic and radioactive dust, which enters the lungs and bones and is especially harmful to babies and young children."
