Spotlighting Netanyahu's Role in the US War on Iran

The following article (If the US goes to war with Iran, Netanyahu will be the prime suspect, Chemi Shalev, Haaretz, 16/5/19), is of considerable interest when we consider that Ariel Sharon, Israel's prime minister at the time of the 2003 Iraq War, felt obliged to keep as low a profile as possible with respect to Israel's crucial role as the key detonator of the war. Sharon relied instead on his US Ziocon assets and the Israel lobby to steer the Bush administration in the direction he wanted, that of regime change and the balkanisation of Iraq, and to utililise the US military, as opposed to the Israeli, to bring this about.

Since that time, it should be clear to all and sundry that the current Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has ditched the pretense of Israel as an innocent bystander in matters of regional regime change and balkanisation, and come out, time and again, publicly swinging in favour of a war with Iran. As Shalev points out, if and when the US takes on Iran militarily, there'll be no hiding the key role of Netanyahu's Israel in initiating the move to Iraq Iran. (Note that I have somewhat truncated Shalev's essay in order to highlight his thesis):

"Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is the only world leader to openly express support for the escalating US campaign against Iran, but his statement is an exception to the general Israeli rule... The attempt to distance itself from an American military operation in the Middle East, as if Israel were merely a fan sitting in the bleachers cheering its favorite team, inevitably sparks analogies to Yitzhak Shamir's policy of restraint in the 1991 Gulf War and Ariel Sharon's similar attitude during the 2003 war in Iraq... And while Israel did not come under direct attack in the 2003 Iraq War, it was nonetheless compelled to defend itself against claims, which proliferated as the war progressed, that it had pushed President George W. Bush to decide on the attack in the first place. In the lead up to that ill-fated war, Netanyahu was once again one of a handful of prominent Israelis who preferred to break the silence. In public testimony before the Government Reform Committee of the House of Representatives in 2002, Netanyahu assured American lawmakers that Saddam either had nuclear weapons or was on the verge of acquiring them... Deposing Saddam, Netanyahu promised, would do wonders for the Middle East as a whole...

"But even without his damning testimony from the past... if war breaks out between the US and Iran, he will be named as the prime suspect as far as its opponents are concerned. Netanyahu... persuaded Donald Trump to abandon Barack Obama's nuclear deal with Iran. Netanyahu convinced Trump that a combination of crippling economic sanctions and a credible military threat will force Tehran to beg for a new and improved nuclear deal, which will include its malevolent regional activities... Netanyahu become a one-man cheerleading squad for Trump's latest moves.

"But while the campaign to blame Israel for the Iraq War was limited to a relatively small clique of its most vociferous critics - the most prominent of which were Professors Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer in their book about the Israel lobby - conflagration with Iran would dramatically expand the circle of Israel-accusers... It's situation today is substantially worse. After burning his bridges with American liberals, including most Jews... many Democrats are far more likely to point fingers at Netanyahu the moment the first American soldier is killed... Netanyahu believes that the Iranian leadership, like much of the Arab, understands only force. He is convinced that the intense economic pressure coupled with the nightmarish specter of American bombers laying waste to their country will compel Tehran to come back to the negotiating table on all fours in order to carve out the fabled 'better agreement' that both Trump and Netanyahu claim, with no evidence, is eminently achievable... [But] Iran does not view itself as a weak and vulnerable state that has no choice but to capitulate to US ultimatums, but as an equal rival determined to foil Trump or, at worst, survive him...

"Small wonder that in the past 48 hours, White House officials have started to brief US reporters that Trump is less happy with the bellicose approach of his National Security adviser John Bolton, known as one of Israel's closest confidantes in Washington. The catalyst for Trump's reservations was the leaked story of a Pentagon paper prepared for Bolton that envisaged sending 120,000 US troops to fight against the Iranians. Trump boasted that if it came to open conflict, the size of the US force would be much larger, but distanced himself from what critics describe as the warmongering winds emanating from Bolton's office. Experienced Washington observers claim that, based on previous patterns, Trump will soon start criticizing Bolton in public and, after a short hiatus, boot him out of the White House as well... Netanyahu may have to face the possibility that his all-in bet on Trump has failed to produce the dividends he sought and that the anti-Iran strategy built on his beautiful friendship with the US president could be on the verge of collapse.

"The remaining options are both unpalatable for Netanyahu. The first is that Iran will resist recently fortified economics sanctions and continue to incrementally abandon its commitments under the 2015 nuclear accord, without risking any retaliation from the countries that still adhere to it. The second is a military fare-up between Iran and the US, which or may not cripple Tehran's nuclear infrastructure but is certain to inflict human suffering, financial upheaval, escalating internal strife in Washington and the certainty that Netanyahu will be held responsible for them all. Worse, Trump may eventually reach the same conclusion."

Venezuela for Dummies

So sad to see some otherwise bright people not quite up to scratch with the ongoing attempt by the US at regime change in Venezuela.

Maybe they've never heard of the CIA coups in Iran (1953), Guatemala (1954), or Chile (1973), to name but the tip of the US regime change iceberg last century. But surely, Iraq (2003), Honduras (2009), Libya (2011), and Syria (2011-) have lingered in their memory?

I wish.

So here, I think, is really all you really need to know about what's going on in Venezuela, which is to say all you really need to know about what is going on in the minds of the neocon/ziocon crazies who hold the levers of power in Washington:

"Every ten years or so, the US needs to pick up some small, crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show the world we mean business."

Learn those words by heart. They're standard operating procedure for imperial America, and for as long as it believes it has an unfettered right to interfere in, undermine, sanction, or invade other countries in order to facilitate its global corporate agenda of pillage and plunder, they will remain relevant.

The words, of course, come from US neocon warmonger Michael Ledeen, at a time when he was salivating at the prospect the 2003 US invasion, occupation and destruction of Iraq.

Since that time, Ledeen has been pleased to see the devastation of Libya, and no doubt still has his hopes set on that of Syria. While Iran is currently in his cross hairs, no one, including Venezuela, is safe from the neocon/ziocon lust for blood and domination. As the following full-throated howl from Ledeen makes abundantly clear.

(And do I really need to point out here, that for Ledeen - and Trump neocons/ziocons Bolton, Pompeo and Pence - 'tyrants' are those who resist being rolled by the Americans, and 'would-be revolutionaries' are CIA assets such as Venezuela's current US puppet, Juan Guaido?)

"The tyrants are in a jam, and Machiavelli pronounced tyranny the most unstable form of regime. I'd welcome stronger odors of rot in Caracas and Tehran, but there are some even so. I believe we must act. Speeches and sanctions are not likely to suffice. Our allies and the would-be revolutionaries have well-justified suspicions that, when their lives are on the line, the United States will not send in the Marines. Or even the Air Force. Hope they're wrong." (From What does a successful revolution smell like? Faster, please!, pjmedia.com, 1/3/19)

Get it?

The Ascendancy of the Christian Zionist Crazies

Under the presidency of George W Bush (2001-09), the US administration was riddled with neocon crazies (or "fucking crazies" as then secretary of state Colin Powell once memorably referred to them), who recognised no difference between US and Israeli interests, and were responsible for tearing Iraq limb from limb from 2003 on.

In addition to its share of neocon crazies, such as national security adviser John Bolton, and special representative for Venezuela Elliot Abrams, the current Trump administration contains yet another layer of lunacy - Christian Zionists, such as vice president Mike Pence and secretary of state Mike Pompeo, who are itching to do to Iran what Bush and his neocons did to Iraq.

For example, could the annals of US foreign policy possibly furnish anything quite as crazy as the following exchange between Chris Mitchell, Middle East Bureau Chief of the US Christian Broadcasting Network (CBN), and Pompeo at a recent press conference in Jerusalem?

Q: "Could it be that President Trump right now has been raised up for such a time as this, just like Queen Esther, to help save the Jewish people from the Iranian menace?"

A: "As a Christian, I certainly believe that's possible. It was remarkable - so we were down in the tunnels where we could see 3,000 years ago... the remarkable history of the faith in this place and the work that our administration's done to make sure that this democracy in the Middle East, that this Jewish state remains. I am confident that the Lord is at work here." (Secretary of State Pompeo to CBN news: God may have raised up Trump like he raised up Queen Esther, David Brody, cbn.com, 21/3/19)

(For those unversed in obscure biblical lore, Esther, a Jewish queen of the Persian king Ahasuerus, is credited with interceding with her husband to save her people from the plotting of his evil adviser Haman.)

Trump Whisperers

Just to revisit the issue of rising petrol prices:

"The risk of a global energy shock is rising rapidly as the looming US sanctions on Iran and a rising US dollar combine to export layers of stress to the rest of the world. While the renewed US sanctions don't officially kick in until early next month they are already having a significant effect as Iran's customers scramble to find different sources of supply. Iranian oil production is falling quite rapidly... Trump, who sometimes appears to have trouble seeing the relationship between cause (his sanctions) and effect (the soaring oil prices) has accused OPEC of 'ripping off' the the rest of the world." (Rising oil prices, $US put pressure on energy costs, Stephen Bartholomeusz, Sydney Morning Herald, 4/10/18)

There is, of course, more to this msm story than meets the eye. But don't expect it to be spelt out in the corporate media. Sure, you'll hear some gibberish on the matter from Trump from time to time, but don't be deceived. It's those who are whispering in his ear that matter here, in particular US national security adviser John Bolton and Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu.

Bolton is a neocon - more accurately Ziocon - from the Bush era, and a long-time advocate for regime change in the Middle East, including, of course, Iraq. He has a record, like his fellow Ziocons, who became an integral part of the Bush administration, of wanting to topple Middle East governments opposed to Israel, and reconfigure the Middle East in its interests, stretching back to his association with neocon think tank the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA) and the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) in the 90s. Revealingly, in 2005, Bolton was awarded the Zionist Organisation of America's Defender of Israel award.

Netanyahu's obsession with Iran as a so-called existential threat to Israel also goes back decades. One only has to observe his theatrical sabre-rattling directed against Iran in the UNGA and other international fora, not to mention his unprecedented hold (through the Israel lobby) over both houses of the US Congress and his easy access to the president himself.

If you really want to understand why you're paying more for your petrol, mark these words of former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter from his 2006 book, Target Iran. (p 208):

"The conflict currently underway between the US and Iran is, first and foremost, a conflict born in Israel. It is based upon an Israeli contention that Iran poses a threat to Israel, and defined by Israeli assertions that Iran possesses a nuclear weapons program. None of this has been shown to be true, and indeed much of the allegations made by Israel against Iran have been clearly demonstrated as being false. And yet the US continues to trumpet the Israeli claims, and no individual more loudly than the US Ambassador to the UN, John Bolton."

When Zionists Urge

The "independent, always" Sydney Morning Herald is now almost as much a conveyor belt for Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council (AIJAC) propaganda as Murdoch's Australian.

In today's AIJAC emission, Colin Rubenstein, AIJAC's executive director, informs us, essentially, that Iran is a rogue state, run by extremists - a classic case, of course, of the pot calling the kettle black.

Particularly touching is his tender concern for the "long-suffering" people of Iran. What a mensch!

But it's this that really gets me heaving:

"Australia needs a clear and consistent position that should be based on Australia's national interest in robustly addressing the threat posed by a belligerent, expansionist and irresponsible (pot/kettle/black again!) Iran." (Australia must face the new Iran reality, 13/8/18)

A Zionist operative pontificating on the subject of Australia's "national interest"?

Think about that!

Was it not Zionist operatives, otherwise known as neocons, who were instrumental in persuading the Americans that it was in their national interest to invade Iraq in 2003? And, hey, didn't that end well?

And was it not Zionist operatives, in the form of Chaim Weizmann's Zionist Organisation, who persuaded Lord Balfour and his colleagues in 1917 that it was in Britain's national interest to lay the foundations of a Jewish State in Palestine? And, hey, how has that turned out?

And don't forget: when a Zionist operative urges us to "robustly address" a "threat," think what he means by that word 'robust'.

Think Deir Yassin, or Sabra & Shatila. Think operations Cast Lead, Pillar of Defense and Protective Edge. Think death, hell and the grave.

Have a nice day!

Don't Mention Israel

The Guardian 'explains' why Trump - who couldn't find Iran on a map of the world even if he wanted to wipe it off said map - wants the Iran nuclear deal scrapped:

"Trump believes the agreement is a bad deal, which falls short of addressing Iran's regional behaviour or its missile program. He is emboldened by a group of Iran hawks in his inner circle, such as the national security adviser, John Bolton, and the secretary of state, Mike Pompeo. Critics also say it is another example of Trump dismantling Barack Obama's legacy - the Iran deal was his signature foreign policy achievement." (The Iran deal explained: what is it and why does trump want to scrap it? Saeed Kamali Dehghan, 9/5/18)

"Trump believes..."? In Trump. Full stop. End of story.

Now note how coy the Guardian is on the subject of Bolton and Pompeo. "Iran hawks" doesn't begin to do justice to either.

I've already sketched the former's Zio-con affiliations (AEI/PNAC/JINSA/ZOA) in my 28/3/18 post Bolton Out of the Blue. But there's a further, loopier dimension to this rabid warmonger: "Bolton was shepherded into politics by Senator Jesse Helms, a passionate Christian Zionist and a hero of Jerry Fallwell's, who once admiringly described Bolton as 'the kind of man with whom I would want to stand at Armageddon...'" (Allies for Armageddon: The Rise of Christian Zionism, Victoria Clark, 2007, p 250)

If Bolton lies at the interface between the US Zio-cons and its Trumpist Christian Zionist hordes, Evangelical Islamophobe Pompeo is, it seems, the real Christian Zionist deal:

"The threat to America is from people who deeply believe that Islam is the way and the light and the only answer. They abhor Christians and will continue to press against us until we make sure that we pray and stand and fight and make sure we know that Jesus Christ as our savior is truly the only solution for the world." (Pompeo in 2014, quoted in Bolton & Pompeo comments on Islam alarm American Muslims, Tom Gjelten, npr.org, 6/4/18)

"This evil [Islam] is all around us. We will continue to fight these battles. It is a never-ending struggle... until the rapture." (Pompeo in 2015, speaking at the Summit Church's God & Country Rally.)

Certainly, Netanyahu is the only political leader anywhere on the planet in raptures over Trump's latest move, but, hey, don't expect the Guardian to factor that into its pathetic little explainer.

Mugging Syria for Israel 2

Still don't get who's behind the 'get Syria' push? Still don't see who's had it in for Syria for decades. Clearly, you haven't done your homework. Specifically, by reading John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt's seminal 2007 study, The Israel Lobby & US Foreign Policy:

"It is worth recalling that some important figures in the lobby had their sights on Syria well before the Twin Towers fell. Damascus was a prominent target in the 1996 'Clean Break' study written by a handful of neoconservatives for incoming Prime Minister Netanyahu.* In addition, Daniel Pipes and Ziad Abdelnour, the head of the US Committee for a Free Lebanon (USCFL), had coauthored a report in May 2000 calling for the United States to use military threats to force Syria to remove its troops from Lebanon, get rid of its WMD, and stop supporting terrorism. The USCFL is a close cousin to the lobby, numerous neoconservatives are among its major activists and supporters, including Elliott Abrams, Douglas Feith, Richard Perle, and David Wurmser. In fact, all of them signed the 2000 report, as did pro-Israel Congressman Eliot Engel (D-NY), another core USCFL supporter.

"This proposal, and others like it, did not gain much traction in Washington during the Clinton years, mainly because Israel was committed to achieving peace with Syria during that period. Apart from these hard-liners, most groups in the lobby had little incentive to challenge Clinton's policy toward Syria, because the president's approach tended to mirror Israel's. But when Sharon came to power in 2001, Israel's thinking about Syria changed dramatically. Reacting to this shift, a number of groups in the lobby began to press for a more aggressive policy toward Damascus.

"In the spring of 2002, when Iraq was becoming the main issue, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) was also promoting legislation to formally place Syria on the 'axis of evil' and Congressman Engel introduced the Syria Accountability Act in Congress. It threatened sanctions against Syria if it did not withdraw from Lebanon, give up its WMD, and stop supporting terrorism. The proposed act also called for Syria and Lebanon to take concrete steps to make peace with Israel. This legislation was strongly endorsed by a number of groups in the lobby - especially AIPAC - and 'framed,' according to the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, 'by some of Israel's best friends in Congress.' JTA also reported that its 'most avid proponent in the administration' was Elliott Abrams, who, as we have seen, is in frequent contact with [Israeli PM Ehud] Olmert's office.

"The Bush administration opposed the Syria Accountability Act in the spring of 2002, in part because it feared that the legislation might undermine efforts to sell the Iraq war, and in part because it might lead to Damascus to stop providing Washington with useful intelligence about al Qaeda. Congress agreed to put the legislation on the back burner until matters were settled with Saddam.

"But as soon as Baghdad fell in April 2003, the lobby renewed its campaign against Syria. Encouraged by what then looked like a decisive victory in Iraq, some of Israel's backers were no longer interested in simply getting Syria to change its behavior. Instead, they now wanted to topple the regime itself. Paul Wolfowitz declared that 'there has got to be regime change in Syria,' and Richard Perle told a journalist that 'we could deliver a short message [to other hostile regimes in the Middle East]: 'You're next.' The hawkish Defense Policy Board, which was headed by Perle and whose members included Kenneth Adelman, Eliot Cohen, and James Woolsey, was also advocating a hard line against Syria.

"In addition to Abrams, Perle, and Wolfowitz, the other key insider pushing for regime change in Syria was Assistant Secretary of State (and later UN Ambassador) John Bolton. He had told Israeli leaders a month before the Iraq war that President Bush would deal with Syria, as well as Iran and North Korea, right after Saddam fell from power. Toward that end, Bolton reportedly prepared to tell Congress in mid-July that Syria's WMD programs had reached the point where they were a serious threat to stability in the Middle East and had to be dealt with sooner rather than later. The CIA and other government agencies objected, however, and claimed that Bolton was inflating the danger. Consequently, the administration did not allow Bolton to give his testimony on Syria at that time. Yet Bolton was not put off for long. He appeared before Congress in September 2003 and described Syria as a growing threat to US interests in the Middle East.

"In early April, WINEP [Washington Institute for Near East Policy] released a bipartisan report stating that Syria 'should not miss the message that countries that pursue Saddam's reckless, irresponsible and defiant behavior could end up sharing his fate.' On April 15, the Israeli-American journalist Yossi Klein Halevi wrote a piece in the Los Angeles Times titled 'Next, Turn the Screws on Syria,' while that same day neoconservative Frank Gaffney, the head of the Center for Security Policy, wrote in the Washington Times that the Bush administration should use 'whatever techniques are necessary - including military force - to effect behavior modification and/or regime change in Damascus.' The next day Zev Chafets, an Israeli-American journalist and former head of the Israeli government press office, wrote an article for the New York Daily News titled 'Terror-Friendly Syria Needs a Change, Too.' Not to be outdone, Lawrence Kaplan wrote in the New Republic on April 21 that Syrian leader Assad was a serious threat to America.

"The charges leveled against Syria were remarkably similar to those previously made against Saddam. Writing in National Review Online, conservative commentator Jed Babbin maintained that even though Assad's army was a paper tiger, he is still 'an exceedingly dangerous man.'  The basis for that claim was an 'Israeli source who had told Babbin that 'Israel's military and intelligence arms are convinced that Assad will take risks a prudent leader wouldn't' and therefore, 'Assad's unpredictability is itself a great danger.' Marc Ginsberg, former US ambassador to Morocco, warned of 'Syria's secret production of weapons of mass destruction and its weaponization of missile batteries and rockets.' And like their Israeli counterparts, American supporters of Israel suggested that Syria was hiding Saddam's WMD. 'It wouldn't surprise me,' Congressman Engel remarked, 'if those weapons of mass destruction that we cannot find in Iraq wound up and are today in Syria.'

"Back on Capitol Hill, Engel reintroduced the Syria Accountability Act on April 12. Three days later, Richard Perle called for Congress to pass it. But the Bush administration still had little enthusiasm for the legislation and was able to stall it again. In mid-August, Engel and a group of politicians and Jewish leaders from New York traveled to Israel and met for ninety minutes with Ariel Sharon in his Jerusalem office. The Israeli leader complained to his visitors that the United States was not putting enough pressure on Syria, although he specifically thanked Engel for sponsoring the Syria Accountability Act and made it clear that he strongly favored continued efforts to push the legislation on Capitol Hill. The following month, Engel, who announced he was 'fed up with the... administration's maneuvering on Syria,' began pushing the bill again. With AIPAC's full support, Engel began rounding up votes on Capitol Hill. Bush could no longer hold Congress back in the face of this full-court press from the lobby, and the anti-Syrian act passed by overwhelming margins (398-4 in the House; 89-4 in the Senate). Bush signed it into law on December 12, 2003." (pp 273-76)

[*See my posts Absent-Minded Professors Inadvertently Set Iraq Ablaze (22/12/08) & Netanyahu & the Cauldronization of Iraq & Syria (14/3/13).]

Bolton Out of the Blue

Bush-era Ziocon and former UN ambassador, John Bolton, is now Trump's National Security Adviser.

We already know what he wants to do:

"Just 8 months ago, at a Paris gathering, Bolton told members of the Iranian exile group, known as the Mujahedeen Khalq, MEK, or People's Mujahedeen, that the Trump administration should embrace their goal of immediate regime change in Iran and recognize their group as a 'viable' alternative. 'The outcome of the president's policy review should be to determine that the Ayatollah Khomeini's 1979 revolution will not last until its 40th birthday,' Bolton said. (The 40th of the Iranian revolution will be on February 11, 2019.) 'The declared policy of the United States should be the overthrow of the mullahs' regime in Tehran,' Bolton added. 'The behavior and the objectives of the regime are not going to change and, therefore, the only solution is to change the regime itself.' As the Iranian expatriate journalist Bahman Kalbasi noted, Bolton concluded his address to the exiles with a rousing promise: 'And that's why, before 2019, we here will celebrate in Tehran!'" (Here's John Bolton promising regime change in Iran by the end of 2018, Robert Mackey, theintercept.com, 24/3/18)

Now check out Bolton's cv to find out why he wants to do an Iraq on Iran:

"Before joining the Bush II administration, Bolton had been Senior Vice President for Public Policy Research at the American Enterprise Institute and a member of the Project for the New American Century and the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA). Bolton had been a regular contributor to William Kristol's Weekly Standard. In December 2005, after becoming US Ambassador to the United Nations, Bolton would be the keynote speaker at the right-wing Zionist Organization of America's Louis Brandeis Award Dinner, where he received the ZOA's Defender of Israel award." (The Transparent Cabal: The Neoconservative Agenda, War in the Middle East, and the National Interest of Israel*, 2008, p 123)

[*Required reading; see also my 7/1/16 post Tom Switzer Channels Oded Yinon in the Herald.]

Middle East 'Experts' 2

'Expert' alert!

"Experts have long believed Syria held back tonnes of precursors used to manufacture sarin when it gave up its stockpile in 2013 under a Russian-brokered deal. Its production facilities, however, were destroyed, robbing it of the ability to mix fresh sarin from the precursors." (Kim's hands on Assad gas attack, The Times/AFP/The Australian, 1/3/18)

Are these the same 'experts', I wonder, who 'analyse' the Syrian president in light of The Godfather? (See my 23/2/18 post Middle East 'Experts')

No need to wonder further. On the very same page (10) of The Australian, we find one of them, Shalom Lipner! Under a column headed Political winds blow Netanyahu's sinking ship to a rocky shore, comes this potted bio:

"Shalom Lipner, a former foreign policy adviser to the Prime Minister's Office in Jerusalem, is a non-resident senior fellow at the Centre for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution."

But there's more! In today's Australian, two more of these 'experts' - Mark Dubowitz and Jonathan Schanzer - appear on the opinion page as authors of Australia must not be duped into softening its stance on Iran. Their bios:

"Mark Dubowitz is chief executive of the the Washington-based think tank Foundation for Defence of Democracies where Jonathan Schanzer is senior vice-president."

Takes you back to the days of Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle, doesn't it?

The Ziocons are Back!

Here's a guy who feels for the oppressed Iranian people so much that he's tweeting in John Lennon:

Mark Dubowitz @mdubowitz

Imagine a free, democratic, independent, wealthy Iran. Giving full expression to beauty of Persian culture. Tapping into brains & spirit of its remarkable people. No nukes. At peace with its neighbors. Pray for peaceful end to this brutal and corrupt regime. #IranProtests (29/12/17)

Still, not everyone, is convinced:

Omar Baddar @OmarBaddar

It's remarkable how people who never one complained about Israel's nukes or its oppression of Palestinians suddenly discover the virtues of freedom and nuclear non-proliferation when their eyes move just a thousand miles to the east.

But then, Dubowitz is the CEO of the Ziocon finktank Foundation For Defense of Democracies (FDD). That's right, the Ziocons are baaack!

And just to let you know how lucky the Iranian people are that Dubowitz and the FDD have their back, check out this great humanitarian's thoughts on Syria: "When pressed by his interviewer about sectarian bloodshed that could result... from Syria's disintegration, Dubowitz mused that communal violence in Syria 'is not necessarily a bad thing. A Syria that is consumed by its own internal internecine wars,' he said, 'may be certainly less of a security threat than what we're seeing today,' since it would be less able to 'project trouble' in the region and 'cause havoc' for the United States and Israel... " (rightweb.irc-online.org)

OK, but he wouldn't want that to happen to the remarkable and beautiful Persians, would he? Well, sadly, ya know, you've gotta be cruel to be kind: "In particular, he has pushed for sanctions aimed at causing domestic hardship and turmoil inside Iran and argued against adapting US laws to ease the import of sanctions-exempt US medicines." (ibid)

Neocons for Trump

Here's Washington Post columnist Marc Thiessen giving Trump the thumbs-up for his first 100 days in office:

"Trump did something in his first 100 days that his predecessor could not bring himself to do in his entire second term: He enforced Obama's red line against Syria's use of chemical weapons. When the Assad regime apparently used a toxic nerve agent on innocent men, women and children, Trump didn't wring his hands. He acted quickly and decisively, and in so doing restored our credibility on the world stage that Obama had squandered." (Forget the critics, Mr President. Your first 100 days have been just fine, Marc Thiessen, 24/4/17)

Note the word "apparently." This is Thiessen paying lip-service to 'allegedly'. Clearly, he doesn't want you to dwell on the implications of Trump acting on Asad's apparent use of chemical weapons. He just wants you to move right along and applaud the president for acting "quickly and decisively."

All you really need to know about Marc Thiessen is revealed in his appended bio, where he's described as "a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, and the former chief speechwriter for president George W Bush."

'Republic of Fear' Revisited

In his moving feature, The women of Mosul & liberation from IS, Fairfax journalist Michael Bachelard writes that:

"Repression of all kinds was routine. Conservative Islam might require modesty but IS demanded invisibility. Under strictly enforced clothing rules, it was virtually impossible to visit the public square - certainly not without a male relative. 'Everyone was looking at you, all the time. Everyone was watching your movements,' says mother-of-five Ayat, at the Jada'ah camp near Qayyarah. 'We were to afraid to do anything... so we stopped going out at all.' Failing to wear gloves, flat shoes, or the double veil; even allowing a glimpse of flesh by lifting the veil a crack to check money at the market or to sip a drink - any of these breaches could lead to punishment. Some women were fined 50,000 ($50) or 100,000 dinars, others were whipped or hit with a wooden baton." (Sydney Morning Herald, 5/3/17)

This is Iraq 2017, 14 years on from the US overthrow of the secular, Baathist regime of Saddam Hussein in 2003. While Saddam's Iraq may now be just a distant memory for women like Ayat, older Iraqi women would perhaps remember it with  more than just nostalgia, even, relative to the present, as a kind of paradise lost.

It is worth remembering just how that relative paradise was viewed in the West before it was swept away in 2003, and replaced with the current nightmare world of Shia sectarianism in Baghdad and Wahhabi sectarian madness in Mosul.

Perhaps the most influential book on the subject of pre-2003 Iraq was the best-selling Republic of Fear (1989), written by Iraqi expat, Samir al-Khalil, the nom de plume of Kanan Makiya,

Makiya's thesis is that "Fear is the cement that holds together this strange body politic in Iraq. All forms of organization not directly controlled by the party have been wiped out. The public is atomized and broken up, which is why it can be made to believe anything. A society that used to revel in politics is not only subdued and silent, but profoundly apolitical. Fear is the agency of that transformation; the kind of fear that comes not only from what the neighbours might say, but that makes people careful of what they say in front of their children." (p 275)

Makiya, it should be pointed out, along with the likes of Ahmad Chalabi and Fouad Ajami, went on to become the 'native informant' component of the US ziocons, whose strident advocacy of regime change in Iraq was critical to the Bush/Blair invasion and occupation of Iraq, and he is on record as having described the initial US 'shock and awe' bombing of Baghdad as "music to my ears."*

Needless to say, without that invasion and occupation, first Al-Qaida in Iraq (AQI), and then its even more extreme offspring, Islamic State (IS), would never have appeared on the Iraqi scene, let alone gone on to take key Iraqi cities such a Mosul and transform them into the kind of Wahhabi sectarian hellholes described by women such as Ayat.

Makiya, writing on the subject of Iraqi women under Baathist rule in Republic of Fear, depicts, relative to the lives of women in Mosul under Islamic State, what must seem to us now as a near golden age of feminism:

"The entry of women into the educational system as a whole is another noteworthy Ba'thist accomplishment. In 1970-71, there were 318,524 girls in primary school, 88,595 at the secondary level, and 9,212 at the university level. For the 1979-80 school year the absolute numbers were respectively as follows: 1,165,856, 278,485, and 28,647. By 1980 women accounted for 46% of all teachers, 29% of physicians, 46% of dentists, 70% of pharmacists, 15% of accountants, 14% of factory workers, and 16% of civil servants [...] The important thing about all the legislation on women was precisely where it chose to make the break with tradition. Islamic law has always been clear regarding its view of the subordinate status of women in relation to men as a direct consequence of their sex... Moreover, there is nothing in the very sincere and far-reaching efforts of the Bath to involve women in the labour force or to mobilize them that is un-Islamic, although it certainly represents a radical break with traditional society and deeply cherished values. One need only mention the masses of veiled women mobilized by the Islamic movement in Iran, not only against the Shah, but to break up some of the early feminist demonstrations against Khomeini's edict on the veil." (pp 89-91)

All of which only accentuates the culpability of Bush, the Ziocons, and their Arab fellow travellers, for the appalling plight of the women so vividly described by Bachelard.

[*See Advocating a war in Iraq & offering an apology for what came after, Tim Arango, nytimes.com, 13/5/16]

Thus Spake M'Lord Turnbull

"Malcolm Turnbull will declare that Muslim armies must lead the fight against Islamic State as he commits Australia to a long fight to destroy the group's power base..." (Muslim armies must lead ISIS fight: PM, David Crowe, The Australian, 19/1/16)

Hello?

AUSTRALIA, the US, Britain etc, egged on by Ziocon chickenhawks whose notion of foreign policy is that "every ten years or so the US needs to pick up some small, crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show the world we mean business,"* do just that with Iraq in 2003, releasing the genie of sectarianism there and turning Iraq into a playpen for first AQI, and now IS... and then along comes M'Lord Turnbull, declaring that Muslims must get down on their hands and knees and clean up the bloody mess...

Oh, and:

"Mr Turnbull will also acknowledge the link between the terrorists and Islam..."

... but not the link between the sectarian terrorists and US foreign policy forged by Ronald Reagan and Bushama in Afghanistan and Iraq/Syria respectively.

[*The 'Ledeen Doctrine']

Tom Switzer Channels Oded Yinon in the Herald

Whatever happened to progress? One hundred years ago we had Britain Sir Mark Sykes and France's Georges Picot, smack bang in the middle of World War I, drawing lines on a map of the Middle East and coming up with the Sykes-Picot Agreement: You take those bits and we'll have these, old chap.

Those were the days, my friend. We thought they'd never end.

Well, they haven't, because now we've got Australia's Tom Switzer and America's John Bolton having another go at drawing lines on a map of the Middle East. Here's Switzer (research associate at the University of Sydney's United States Studies Centre and host of Radio National's Between the Lines):

"The problem boils down to this: Iraq and Syria as we know them are gone. Iraq is not one people, but rather three peoples: Kurds, (minority) Sunnis, and (majority) Shiites. Syria is also three peoples: Kurds, (majority) Sunnis, and (minority) Alawites/Shiites, who protect the Christians and other religious minorities. None of this should surprise a student of modern history. Both Iraq and Syria are artificial states and ethnically divided societies created out of the ruins of the the Ottoman Empire a century ago. What the US-led invasion in 2003 and the so-called Arab Spring in 2011 did was unleash age-old sectarian animosities that are eroding political structures and borders that have more or less prevailed since the end of World War I. What to do? John Bolton, a former US ambassador to the UN and senior fellow at the Washington-based American Enterprise Institute, has a good idea: create independent states for the Kurds and Sunnis after the defeat of IS. A 'Sunni-stan', he argues, could be a bulwark against the Iran-backed regimes in Damascus and Baghdad." (Redrawing the map is the best solution, Sydney Morning Herald, 5/1/16)

No, the problem really boils down to this - the Switzers and Boltons of this world.

Just a reminder: John Bolton is an American neoconservative, one of the rum crew, including Cheney, Rumsfeld, Libby, Wolfowitz, Perle, Feith & Abrams, that formed PNAC (Project for a New American Century) back in the 1990s. At the time the PNAC neocons/Ziocons urged Clinton to blitz Iraq - to no avail. Unfortunately for them, they had to wait for Bush Jr, 9/11 and a few plum posts in the Bush administration before they could realise their dream - today's Iraq (and Libya and Syria).

Bolton became US Undersecretary of State and duly went off to confer with USraeli leader Ariel Sharon in February 2003. Needless to say, there was - LOL - a meeting of minds:

Sharon said "that Iran, Libya and Syria should be stripped of weapons of mass destruction after Iraq. 'These are irresponsible states which must be disarmed of weapons of mass destruction, and a successful American move in Iraq as a model will make that easier to achieve'."

And Bolton replied "that he had no doubt America would attack Iraq, and that it would be necessary thereafter to deal with threats from Syria, Iran and North Korea."*

Good old John. As the late Republican Senator (and friend of Jesus) Jesse Helms said in endorsement: "John Bolton is the kind of man with whom I would want to stand at Armaggedon, if it should be my lot to be on hand for what is forecast to be the final battle between good and evil in this world."

Actually, it's not Sir Mark Sykes that Tom Switzer and John Bolton are channeling here. It's Israel's Oded Yinon and his 1982 Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties:

"Iraq... is guaranteed as a candidate for Israel's targets. Its dissolution is even more important for us than that of Syria. Iraq is stronger than Syria... Every kind of inter-Arab confrontation will assist us... 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... 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."

But hang on, wasn't Oded Switzer telling us only a matter of weeks ago that "The smartest strategy is for the West to slowly but steadily disengage militarily from the Middle East and allow the people in that region to settle their own differences"?**

Now here he is, hanging with John (Regime Change) Bolton, who wants to create Kurdistan, Sunnistan, Shiastan (and, for all we know, Yazidistan as well). (Hey, maybe they could be called Cheneystan, Rumsfeldistan, Perlestan and so on.)

What ever happened to consistency? Oh, wait, I can guarantee that Oded Switzer will never, ever, want to play around with Israel's borders - wherever they happen to be.

And just remember: Oded Switzer doesn't peddle his dubious wares in the Murdoch press, but in Fairfax and on ABC radio.

Have a nice day!

[*Sharon says US should also disarm Iran, Libya & Syria, Aluf Benn, Haaretz, 18/2/03; **The West should let the Middle East settle its own differences, Sydney Morning Herald, 16/11/15]

Blowing the Whistle on Murdoch's Australian

An extract from Ideology runs rampant at Rupert Murdoch's Australian newspaper by Jim Buckell, News Corpse escapee:

"Under the editorship of Paul Kelly and then David Armstrong this extremist tendency ['unwavering, often knee-jerk conservative ideology'], while not unknown, was usually kept in check by a range of views. Sadly, in the noughties this position gradually gave way to the thundering of the neoconservatives. The paper began to act like more of a propaganda sheet for the rightwing of the Liberal Party than a broad-based sounding board for big ideas and public policy. This period roughly corresponded with [Chris] Mitchell's ascendancy as editor-in-chief. And therein lies the dilemma. No matter how well written, no matter how well edited, the paper's right-wing bias is overwhelming. The tone is hectoring and unforgiving, making it frustrating to read and tricky to work around as a journalist. As a reporter you learn how to navigate around masthead biases that don't fit in with your own values or approach to news gathering. It's a survival technique you have to master to balance the demands of editors with the fragile trust you build with your sources... I can't read the paper anymore. It's too distressing seeing ideology run rampant because it suits the ideology of Rupert Murdoch and his allies. The influence the Australian and News Corp Australia wield by setting a market-based, small-government agenda is widely understood because it's so blatant. Less well scrutinised is the impact of groupthink on the profession of journalism within Fortress News. When dissent is marginalised and self-censorship is an unquestioned norm, the newsroom culture becomes self-serving. Chris Mitchell may have been a conjuror but we should be under no illusion about the price he extracted." (theguardian.com, 7/12/15)

Buckell's piece, while welcome, is too short on detail. If only he could eventually write an extended analysis of the beast, along the lines of Robert Manne's 2011 Quarterly Essay - but without Manne's selective vision - see my 2 posts, The Silence of the Intellectuals 1 & 2 (6-7/9/11).

A trawl through the hundreds of comments which followed on the Guardian Australia website was an interesting experience given that so few of the commenters actually read The Australian (and, I suspect, are blissfully unaware of its malign hold on our political class). Typically, therefore, only 3 were sufficiently aware of its ferocious Zionism to refer to the fact:

"I've read the Australian since 1980, and the last few years the constant bashing of the ABC, and extreme slant to the right makes it hard to read more than half the paper. Worst of all are the diatribes of Greg Sheridan, sycophant of murderous regimes like China, and an appalling apologist for the crimes of Israel and its occupation of the West Bank. I remember back in the 80s before Timor gained independence his shameful apologia for the murder of Timorese by the Indonesian government."

"The Australian Goebbels. Heil Rupert. But now he prays to the mountain of Zion. The rest is just business."

"The Australian - cheerleader for Israel, relentless Muslim-basher, climate change denier. Try getting a pro-Palestinian letter published - no chance - while some members of the pro-Israel brigade seem to have a season ticket to the letters page."

And, apart from that last comment, no one - not one! - mentioned The Australian's now dominant feature, its rampant Islamophobia.

On the other hand, it was good to see so many Guardian readers taking the opportunity to have a swipe at the Guardian itself, although none mentioned its insidious liberal Zionist line, which emanates from its (relatively) new editor-in-chief Jonathan Freedland, and surfaces in opinion pieces by him and the likes of Nick Cohen, Hadley Freeman and Rafael Behr.

Redirections

"'The Assad regime has been diabolically bad for Syria,' Julie Bishop said at the UN. [...] Indeed so. [...] [W]hich makes Bishop's remarks bizarre. 'However, we're dealing with reality and the fact is we need a political solution.' She went on to say 'the reality is President Assad is still in Syria, the reality is Russia is backing President Assad... We can have some optimism that Russia's involvement is positive' [...]"

So writes Elliott Abrams in No peace in Syria until Assad regime is deposed in The Australian of 1/10/15.

Abrams' appended bio reads:

"Elliott Abrams is a senior fellow for Middle Eastern studies at the Council on Foreign relations in Washington. He served as deputy assistant to the president and deputy national security adviser in the administration of George W. Bush."

How reassuring. The bloke who gave us regime change in Iraq!

As you'd expect from a supporter of Jewish State in the Levant (JSIL), Abrams is big on the Sunni/Shia divide:

"To Sunnis, the Alawite Assad regime is a Shia force backed by Shia militias - sent to kill Sunnis."

He concludes his piece thus:

"The question for us is, do we step back and allow this [mass killing and amazing brutality in Syria] or do we give Syrians the wherewithal to fight for their country? Even now... non-jihadi rebels control parts of the country. They could do better if they had real help instead of the small and embarrassing efforts the US and a few other countries have made. The surest way to keep Islamic State alive and growing is to do a deal with Russia and Iran and keep Assad in power. Under those circumstances it will continue to recruit Sunnis, and its narrative (as well as that of Jabhat al-Nusra... the al-Qa'ida affiliate) will continue to be 'help us, only we are trying to fight for Sunnis.'... [W]e should recognise that Assad is a gift to the worst Sunni terrorist groups. Peace in Syria cannot come while he is in office."

Even now... non-jihadi rebels control parts of the country. Can you spot them by the flowers in their hair?

Abrams has real form.

He's one of the neocon (more correctly, ziocon) brigade (Wolfowitz, Perle, Feith and the rest), who were instrumental in bringing down Iraq's Saddam Hussein in 2003, and dividing the country along sectarian lines.

And didn't that work out well? For Israel (the point of the whole exercise) yes, but Iraqis...

Anyway, let's return to those heady days of shock and awe to see how we got here.

Back then, thanks to Abrams and his mates, the US had a DIRECTION: topple Saddam, empower Iraq's Shiites, and unleash Shia death squads on Iraq's Sunnis.

But guess what? Out of the blue, entirely unforeseen, Shia Iran was in like Flynn! WHOOPS!

Time for a REDIRECTION: Undermine Iran by mobilising Sunni (Wahhabi brand) Saudi Arabia against Iran's allies in Syria (Asaad) and Lebanon (Hezbollah). Great idea - just as long as Saudi-funded, Sunni (Wahhabi brand) jihadis were giving Assad and Nasrallah curry, that is.

But guess what? Out of the blue, entirely unforeseen, OMG! What's this? In Iraq and Syria too! Wahhabi ISIS???!!! SHIT!

Time for another REDIRECTION: Hello, Iran?

OK, got the picture?

Now here's Abrams, as deputy national security adviser, one of the boosters of the DIRECTION and co-author (along with Dick Cheney & Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the Saudi national security adviser) of REDIRECTION No. 1, taking issue with our part in REDIRECTION No. 2. What this bozo doesn't seem to realise is that, whether it's Jules or Tanya at the foreign policy helm, we'd follow the US to Hell and back if asked. Hell, even if we weren't asked.

For the full picture, I recommend Seymour Hersh's The Redirection (newyorker.com, 5/3/07)

Made in Israel: America's Next War - Part 1

There's far more to US politics at the moment than the circus antics of presidential wannabes such as Trump or Clinton.

Although you won't read about it in the Australian msm, there's actually a make-or-break struggle going on between Israel (and its US fifth column) and the US president as to whether more American blood and treasure should be spilled/squandered (this time in a war against Iran) to keep Israel in the manner to which it has become accustomed, namely, top dog in the Middle East.

For the big picture, beginning with the background, and concluding tomorrow with the current state of play, here's the latest must-read James Petras essay:

The Conference of 52 Presidents of the Major American (sic) Jewish Organizations & the US-Iran Nuclear Agreement: The Centrepiece of US Foreign Policy Struggle

Prologue

In the village of Duma, an 18-month-old baby died following the fire-bombing of his family's home by Israeli settlers. The father of the child died of burns a week later and the surviving mother and young sibling are barely alive - covered with burns from racist Jewish arson.

"The United Nations Special Committee to investigate Israel's practices toward Palestinians in Israeli-occupied territory has revealed that the 'root cause' of the escalating violence is the 'continuous policy of Jewish settlement expansion (financed and defended by the Netanyahu regime) and the climate of impunity relating to the activities of the settlers (financed and defended by the Presidents of the 52 Major American Jewish Organizations). (UN News Centre, 10/8/15)

Introduction

The recent US-Iran nuclear agreement, titled the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), has implications far beyond the ending of nearly 40 years of regional confrontation.

"Several fundamental issues concerning the nature of US policymaking, the power of a foreign regime (Israel) in deciding questions of war and peace, and the role organized power configurations with overseas loyalties play in making and breaking executive and legislative authorities.

"To investigate these fundamental issues it is important to discuss the historical context leading up to the rise of this paradoxical situation: Where a 'global power' is subjected to the dictates of a second-rate state through the strategic penetration and influence of domestic organizations composed of 'nominal citizens' of the subject state with 'divided (to put it politely) loyalties'.

The Centrality of Israel's Unchallenged Regional Supremacy

"The motor force of Israeli foreign and domestic policy is their drive for unchallenged regional supremacy: Military dominance through wars, territorial occupation, brutal armed interventions, extra-territorial political assassinations of opponents and favorable one-sided treaties. To ensure its unquestioned dominance Israel has developed the only nuclear weapons arsenal and largest missile launch capacity in the region, and has openly declared its willingness to use nuclear weapons against regional rivals.

"Israel's repeated mantra that it faces an 'existential threat' from its Arab neighbors and subjugated Palestinians has no factual basis. On the contrary, history has taught the world that Israel, directly and indirectly, has engaged in a series of aggressive wars devastating its Arab and Muslim neighbors. Israel has bombed and/or invaded Lebanon, Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Palestine and Sudan. Israel has assassinated scientists in Iran and Palestinian political leasers, as well as intellectuals, writers and poets in the Gulf, Jordan and Europe. [And Lebanon: MERC] Even family members have not been spared Israeli terror.

"Israel can brutalize its neighbors with total impunity because of its vast military superiority, but its real power is found in its overseas proxies, the Tel Aviv-dominated Zionist power configurations [ZPCs], especially in North America and Europe. The most important proxy organizations and individuals operate in the United States. Thanks to them Israel has received over $150 billion dollars in economic and military grants and loans from US taxpayers in the past half-century. Each year Israel rakes in billions in tribute, billions in tax-free donations from billionaire Israel loyalists with dual US citizenship, who extract their wealth from American workers, investors and gamblers, and hundreds of billions via unrestricted investments, privileged market access and technology transfers.

"The economic and military transfers to Israel result from the cumulative build-up of political power among powerful US Zionists. No one today disputes that what is dubbed the 'pro-Israel lobby' is the most powerful configuration inside Washington DC today. Focusing primarily on the 'Israel lobby' overlooks the powerful role that influential, Zionist political officials have played in deciding issues prioritized by the Israeli leadership.

"Israeli power over the making and implementing of US Middle East policy has led to the US invasions of Iraq, Syria and Libya; the current economic boycott and blockade of Iran; the breakup of Sudan; and the bombing of Somalia.

"Israeli power in the US operates through various political instruments in different institutional settings. The pro-Israel mass media moguls at the Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, the New York Times and all the TV networks unconditionally defend Israel's bombing, dispossession and repression of Palestinians while demonizing any Arab or Muslim states which have opposed its brutality - frequently calling for the US to impose sanctions and/or to launch armed attacks against Israel's critics.

"The US military campaign known as the 'Global War on Terror', a series of brutal invasions and 'regime changes' launched after the attacks of September 11, 2001, was formulated and promoted by fanatical Israeli proxies in strategic positions within the Bush government, especially Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, 'Scooter' Libby, Elliott Abrams and Richard Perle. The boycott of Iran was designed and implemented by US Treasury officials Levey and Cohen. The drumbeat for war in Iraq and the phony 'intelligence' about 'weapons of mass destruction' was propagated by New York Times scribe, Judith Miller, designed by Wolfowitz and Feith, backed by the 52 Presidents of the Major American Jewish Organizations, and ultimately paid for with the lives of over 5,000 Americans and well over a million Iraqi civilians. The destruction and breakup of Iraq, a long-time supporter of Palestinian national rights, was accomplished without the loss of a single Israeli life - despite the enormous benefit the Jewish state has enjoyed from the war! The extraordinary success of this highest Israeli military priority was due entirely to the machinations of Israel's highly placed US proxies.

"Yet the cost of the war has been very high for the American people (and unimaginably high for Iraqis): Over a quarter million physical and mental casualties among US troops; two trillion dollars and counting in military expenditures crippling the US economy and a vast and growing army of Islamist and nationalist rebels opposing US interests throughout the region.

"The Israeli power configuration within the US led the US into a war which enhanced Israel's dominance of the Middle East and accelerated its annexation of Palestinian land. But Israeli ambition for total regional power is not complete. It still faces a formidable opponent to its conquest of the Middle East: Iran remains a staunch supporter of the people and national sovereignty of Palestine, Syria and Lebanon.

"The regime of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, backed by the entire Israeli political opposition and the majority of the Jewish electorate, has been aggressively pushing for a US confrontation with Iran - through economic and eventually military warfare.

"There have been scores of public and private meetings in the US and elsewhere where Netanyahu's regime 'informed' (or rather dictated to) the entire Zionist power configuration to launch an economic and military attack against Iran with the open aim of 'regime change' and the ultimate aim of breaking up and destroying the Islamic Republic - similar to the destruction of Iraq, Libya, and now Syria."

Part 2 to follow...

Obama: No More Wars for Israel

The Iraq War theses of James Petras (The Power of Israel in the United States, 2006), John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt (The Israel Lobby & US Foreign Policy, 2007), and Stephen Sniegoski (The Transparent Cabal, 2008) have just been vindicated by Barack Obama. (My clarifications in brackets):

"Between now and the congressional vote in September, you're going to hear a lot of arguments against this deal, backed by tens of millions of dollars in advertising. [Hello, Israel Lobby!] And if the rhetoric in these ads, and the accompanying commentary, sounds familiar, it should - for many of the same people who argued for the war in Iraq are now making the case against the Iran nuclear deal. [Hello, Ziocons!] Now, when I ran for President, 8 years ago as a candidate who had opposed the decision to go to war in Iraq, I said that America didn't just have to end that war - we had to end the mindset that got us there in the first place. [Hello, Ziocons!] It was a mindset characterized by a preference for military action over diplomacy; a mindset that put a premium on unilateral US action over the painstaking work of building international consensus; a mindset that exaggerated threats beyond what the intelligence supported." (Remarks by the President on the Iran Nuclear Deal, American University, Washington, DC, 5/8/15)

Go Back To Where You Came From

"'I just want to live a respectable life here as a human; I just say, welcome us,' Ammar Mershed says in one of the most moving scenes in the new series of the award-winning Go Back to Where You Came From... Mershed is a Palestinian refugee from Iraq, encountered by some of the opinionated group early in the first episode. He's a deeply sincere but jolly and hospitable man now working as a teacher's aide. His family has settled in western Sydney's Bankstown, part of the world's 5 million stateless Palestinians." (The turnaround, First Watch, Graeme Blundell, Weekend Australian Review, 25/7/15)

Graeme Blundell's sympathetic sketch of Palestinian refugee Ammar Mershed is most unusual for a Murdoch rag. What a pity it isn't longer.

If I may take the liberty of adding the missing details:

Back in 1948, the Mershed family was driven out of their Palestinian homeland by the fanatical forces of Jewish State in the Levant (JSIL) and never allowed back. In those grim days, if any Palestinian refugees were caught by JSIL gunmen trying to return to their homes and lands, they were labelled 'infiltrators' and simply shot out of hand. (Ditto today, 67 years later.) The family found their way, somehow, to Iraq, where Ammar was born.

Then in 2003, Ammar, now with a family of his own, was displaced yet again after a cabal of JSIL-linked US neocons, having risen to giddy prominence in the administration of George W. Bush, persuaded that dumbarse and his cronies that Iraq should be next on his to-do list after Afghanistan. And so Ammar and his family found themselves once more on the run.

Somehow they ended up in Australia, where occasionally he'd encounter racist bogans who'd tell him to go back where he came from. But what could he do? He couldn't tell them that he came from Palestine and would give his right arm to go back there if he could, because he knew that the idea of a refugee actually wanting to go back to where he came from was simply too hard for these mental defectives to understand. They'd just think he was nuts, or trying to be funny, and get even more aggro. And anyway, some of them had actually taken to waving JSIL flags at Reclaim Australia rallies.

So whenever these grubs crossed his path and shot their mouths off, Ammar had little choice but to grin and bear it, retreat to the safety of his public housing digs in Bankstown, focus on the little map of Palestine, lovingly carved from the wood of an olive tree, which hung on his living room wall, and say to himself: Next year in Jerusalem.

An Australian in Washington

In his opinion piece in yesterday's Australian, Restraint is not weakness, Australia's former foreign minister, Bob Carr, offers an overview and defence of Obama's foreign policy: Bush was a foreign policy 'maximalist'. Obama is a foreign policy 'minimalist'. Three cheers for the latter!

But it wasn't Carr's case for Obama that interested me. It was his opening paragraphs. I cannot overestimate their documentary value:

"The caller was an Australian living in the US, effectively embedded in George W Bush's administration. He knew the cabinet, got to see the vice-president, had spent time in the Oval Office. It was March 2003, the Iraq war just launched.

"'America will have a decisive win,' he told me, and went on with arguments imbibed from the feisty, cordite-flavoured atmosphere of a Washington at war. It was all upbeat.

"'Iraq gets a market economy. It becomes a democracy. This changes the Arab world. They make peace with Israel.' He may even have implied a prod or two from this triumphant US military would bring change to Iran. 

"Here, then, was the prevailing wisdom of the neo-cons who had salivated over a war with Iraq and the ultranationalists they had recruited for this preposterous mission."

Here is yet further evidence, from an embedded source with access to the highest levels of US decision-making, that the Bush regime's war against Iraq was, first and foremost, a war to rearrange the Middle East in Israel's interest, and that a neocon (more accurately, Ziocon) cabal, already with an eye on using US military muscle to topple the Iranian regime, was leading the charge.

Simply stunning. Thank you, Bob!

On a more mundane level, though, could you please, in the national interest, name your Australian caller of March, 2003? It worries me no end that this credulous fuckwit could currently be embedded somewhere in our own foreign policy machinery, wreaking God-knows-what havoc.