|
Iran
War: American Military Versus Israel Firsters
By James Petras
Why must Jewish
organizations be and be seen as the loudest drum-beaters of
all? Why can we not bring ourselves to say that military
intervention is not on the table at all? Why not stash it under
the table, out of sight and mount instead a diplomatic assault?
Leonard Fein (Forward
November 7, 2007)
11/29/07 "ICH"
-- --- Introduction
As the White House and
Congress escalate their economic sanctions and military threats
against Iran, top military commanders and Pentagon officials
have launched a counter-offensive, opposing a new Middle East
War. While some commentators and journalists, like Chris Hedges
(Truthdig, November 13, 2007), privy to this high stakes
inter-elite conflict, attribute this to a White House cabal led
by Vice President Cheney, a more stringent and accurate
assessment pits the Zionist Power Configuration (ZPC) in the
center of the Iran war debate. There is a great deal riding in
this conflict – the future of the American empire as well as the
balance of power in the Middle East. Equally important is the
future of the US military and our already heavily constrained
democratic freedoms. The outcome of the continuous and
deepening confrontation between top US military officials and
the Israel Firsters over US foreign policy in the Middle East
has raised fundamental questions over self-determination,
colonization, civilian primacy and military political
intervention, empire or republic. These and related issues are
far from being of academic interest only; they concern the
future of America.
Recent History
of the Civilian Militarists versus Anti-War Movements
Over the past seven
years, the civilian militarists in the executive branch and
Congress have resoundingly defeated any and all efforts by
Congressional critics and anti-war leaders to end the war in
Iraq and Afghanistan. Since 2003, the peace movement has
practically vanished from the streets – in large part a product
of its own self-destruction. The great majority of anti-war
leaders opted for Democratic Party-electoral politics, a
strategy that led to the successful election of a pro-war
Democratic majority. The retreat of the anti-war movement
turned into a full-scale rout when the government moved toward a
new war with Iran: the Zionist-influenced half of the peace
movement refused to join forces to oppose the Iran war agenda –
heavily influenced by their loyalty to Israel and its shrill
cries of an ‘existential’ danger from non-existent Iranian
nuclear weapons and dependent on ‘liberal’ Zionist donors.
Along with the
capitulation of the anti-war leaders and absence of any ‘street
politics’, liberal Democrats, or what passes for them, fell into
line with the Israel First Democratic congress-people pushing
for an increasingly bellicose political agenda toward Iran. The
White House, especially the Vice President’s office were fully
in tune with the Israel Firsters and the ZPC ‘keeping the
military option’ on the table and priming the US forces in the
Gulf for offensive action. Within the military and the
intelligence services strong opposition emerged to an attack on
Iran.
American
Military Versus the ZPC Fight over Middle East Wars
The battle between the
civilian militarists (Zion-Cons) in the Pentagon and the
military brass took place, in large part, behind closed doors:
From the beginning, the military was severely handicapped in so
far as they could not engage in public debate. The military
elite did not possess an army of lobbyists, activist ideologues
and the entire mass media apparatus to promote their point of
view. The ZPC-Israel Firsters’ Wars-For-Israel crowd did
have all of these ‘resources’ in abundance, and they used them
to the maximum in a spiteful and arrogant fashion, when the
occasion arose – such as when military officers testifying
before Congress questioned the war-to-be in Iraq.
Zion-militarists like Richard Perle, Norman Podhoretz and their
influential cohort baited the military for having ‘the most
advanced arms and refusing to use them’, of being fearful of
expending troops to defend US security interests in the Middle
East, of being ultra-cautious when audacity and preemptive
action was necessary. The Israel-Firsters, who not only never
risked a broken fingernail on any battlefield, deprecated the
generals to increase their power to order them around through
their servile operatives in the Rumsfeld Pentagon, Vice
President’s Office and in Bush’s National Security Council. The
Zion-Cons’ arm-chair military strategists have absolutely no
qualms in sending US troops to war in Afghanistan, Iraq and now
Iran to enhance Israeli regional power because 99.8% of the rank
and file troops are not of their kin and kind. On the contrary
they ridicule the US military precisely to prosecute wars and
avoid the loss of Israeli-Jewish lives, resulting from an
Israeli attack on Iran to enhance its power in the Middle East.
Israel-Firsters
Win Round One
For all of the
above-enumerated reasons, the Israel-Firsters overcame the
doubts and questions on the war by the military in the run-up to
and continuation of the Iraq War. The ZPC’s success in
launching the war over military objections was largely due to
their control over US civilian institutions and the primacy of
these institutions over any and all military political dissent.
However the ZPC was not content with repressing civilian
dissent, they aggressively repressed and silenced any opposition
from within the military: General Eric Shinseki, Chief of Staff
of the Army saw his career destroyed when he questioned US
policy on the eve of the Iraq invasion. Two years later,
General Peter Pace was denied a second term as chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff when he rejected claims by the White House
and the ZPC that Iran was supplying weapons to the Iraqi
insurgents. Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez was retired
following his call for the withdrawal of US troops in Iraq,
which he later described as “a nightmare with no end in
sight”. General John Abazaid followed. Captains and
Colonels in the Pentagon who disagreed with the lies and
fabrication of ‘intelligence’ by the Zion-Cons in the Pentagon
leading to the Iraq invasion were marginalized and/or
silenced. Zion-Cons in the Pentagon marginalized CIA
intelligence reports that didn’t fit in with their war
propaganda– these studies were-written, cut and spliced to serve
their ends. The Zion-Cons in the Pentagon established a
parallel ‘intelligence’ office under their exclusive control
(Office of Special Planning) and placed ‘one of their own’,
Abraham Shumsky, in charge.
In the Zion-Con charge
to push the US into a new war with Iran, they (along with Vice
President Cheney) have successfully delayed and forced the
rewrite of a collective report by various intelligence agencies,
the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iran, because it had
to fit in with their war plans.
The humiliating defeats
and gratuitous public insults which the victorious ZPC inflicted
on the US military has had the effect of raising the back of
senior officers in the run-up to a military attack on Iran. The
military is going public and fighting back with biting open
criticism of the White House and Zion-Con war planners. The
underlying deep and widespread hostility of the high-ranking
military officials has nothing to do with Zion-Con charges of
‘anti-Semitism’ and everything to do with the destruction,
demoralization and discredit of the US military which has
resulted from following Zion-Con war policies in Iraq.
The US armed forces
have crumbled and decayed as the Iraq occupation and
counter-insurgency progresses into its 6th year.
Over half of the officers are refusing to re-enlist, recruiting
quotas are not being reached except by drastically lowering
standards, and morale of on-duty reservists is at it’s lowest
because of extended tours of duty. Black enlistment has dropped
precipitously. Despite the war being portrayed by President
Bush and Israeli leaders including Prime Minister Olmert as for
Israel’s national survival, American Jewish war-time enlistment
is at its lowest in almost a century. Public sentiment for the
military has declined sharply since the war, exacerbated by
Zionist (Richard Perle, Frederick Kagan, Kenneth Pollack and
Martin Indyk) charges of incompetence against American military
occupation forces. The loss of prestige, enlistment and the
increasing over-stretch of the army and the abrasive and
domineering way in which the Zion-Cons denigrate active US
military commanders has raised their ire. At one point in an
interview, General Tommy Franks referred to Zion-Con,
ex-Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith as ‘the dumbest
bastard I ever knew’.
Round Two: American Military Versus
Israel-Firsters: The Iran War
Recognizing how they
were outgunned by the Zion-Con monopoly of public space for
political discussion in the run-up to the Iraq invasion, the
military has gone public. Admiral William Fallon, head of
CENTCOM (Central Command) has launched a series of interviews
designed to counter-Zion-Con war propaganda. He has formed an
anti-War-With-Iran alliance with senior military officers,
Secretary of Defense Gates and sectors of the intelligence
services not under Zion-Con influence (Financial Times
Nov. 12, 2007 p.1). The Secretary of Defense is not a reliable
ally to the officers opposed to an Iran war, since he is
notorious for caving in to ZPC pressure when his post in under
threat.
Every major Israeli public
spokes-person has at least raised the issue of a sneak attack
(translation: ‘preventive war’ in Zion-speak) and many are in
favor of an immediate attack. Reliable sources in Israel claim
that war preparations are already advanced. Fabricating
‘existential threats’ to Israeli existence, Israeli Foreign
Minister Tzipi Livni has spoken forcefully even … shrilly, about
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s threat to ‘wipe Israel
off the map’ – a much repeated, deliberate mistranslation of the
Prime Minister’s reference to Israel (more reliable translations
refer to ‘the regime currently occupying Jerusalem disappearing
into history’).
While Israeli officials have placed
war with Iran as their second most important priority on their
foreign policy agenda, by far their highest priority is
convincing and manipulating the US to carry out the war and save
Israel the enormous economic cost and loss of Israeli lives.
The Israeli state has made its war policy the central task for
their agents and their apparatus in the US. The ZPC has taken
up the Israeli line with a vengeance. Several hundred full-time
functionaries from all the major Jewish organizations have
visited and ‘advised’ Congress that bellicose support for a war
against Iran is the primary way to demonstrate their
unconditional defense of Israel’s ‘survival’ and guarantee
campaign financing from their wealthy political donor base.
Over the past year, several major daily newspapers, weekly and
monthly magazines from the New York Times through Time,
Newsweek, the New Yorker, and the entire yellow
press (NY Post, New York Sun, The Daily
News) has published reams of propaganda articles fabricating
an Iranian nuclear threat, demonizing Iran and its leaders and
calling for the US to bomb Iran and eliminate Israel’s
‘existential’ (the most nauseating and overused cliché) threat.
Several thousand op-ed pieces have been written parroting the
Israeli war-line by a small army of Zionist academics and think
tank propagandists. Breathless and vitriolic, the Israel
Firsters claim that ‘time is running out’, that Iran’s pursuit
of diplomacy is a ploy for inaction, that Iran’s well-documented
openness to negotiations is a trick. Venomous attacks are
launched against Europeans for not pursuing the military option;
Germany is slandered as following in the footsteps of the Nazis
because its industries and banks still do business with Iran.
US critics of the ZPC’s pursuit of an Iranian war for Israel are
accused of being ‘soft on terrorism’, appeasers, and almost
always labeled as overt or covert ‘anti-Semites. The massive,
sustained and one-sided dominance by the ZPC of the Iranian war
narrative has been successful. US public opinion surveys show
over half (52% according to a Zogby Poll) of the US public is in
favor of offensive bombing of Iran. Thus speaks the State of
Israel via its overbearing politically dominant Fifth Column to
the American People: The purpose of the USA is to serve and
sacrifice for the greater good (and power and wealth and
dominance) of Israel.
The clearest and most vicious
Zion-Con counter-attack against the US military’s harsh reaction
to their leading us into the Iraq War came from a predictable
ultra-Zionist think-tank, the Foreign Policy Research Center
(FPRC) run by Ilan Berman, a close collaborator with the Israeli
extremist Likud leader Netanyahu. Speaking at a meeting
co-sponsored by the FPRR and the Reserve Officers Association on
October 15 2007 entitled “Mind the Gap”: Post-Iraq
Civil-Military Relations in America, senior fellow Frank
Hoffman attempted to turn senior military officers’ criticism of
the disastrous Zion-Con authored Iraq War into a sinister
military plot: “The nation’s leadership, civilian and
military, need to come to grips with the emerging
‘stab-in-the-back’ thesis in the armed services and better
define the social compact (sic) and code of conduct (sic) that
governs the overall relationship between the masters of policy
(the Zion-Cons) and the dedicated servants (the military) we ask
to carry it out. (Dereliction of Duty Redux? see
www.fpri.org/enotes/200711.hoffman.derelictionofdutyredux.html).
Hoffman attempts to deflect military and public anger at
the enormous damage in morale, recruitment and lives which the
Zion-Con war policies have inflicted on the US Armed Forces by
invoking an abstract entity: “Our collective failure (sic) to
address the torn fabric and weave a stronger and more enduring
relationship will only allow a sore to fester and ultimately
undermine the nation’s security” (ibid)
Obfuscating Zionist control over
war policy, Hoffman instead refers to “civilian” control
over the military as being “constitutionally, structurally
(?) and historical well-grounded.” This is nonsense: there
is no provision, article or clause in the American Constitution
which states that the military should submit to civilian power
subordinate to a foreign state.
After a vacuous general discussion
of civilian-military relations in the lead-up to the Zion-Con
designed Iraq War, Hoffman then tries to paint the military
critics of Zion-Con Donald Rumsfeld as attacking an innovative
defender of civilian supremacy over the military – even as he
embraced wholesale torture techniques and violated every
principle of the Geneva Convention of War and US Military Code
of Conduct toward prisoners and civilians. Hoffman turns up the
Zion-Con venom against military officers who dared to question
Rumsfeld’s application of Israel’s illegal and totalitarian
technique of colonial warfare in Iraq. He then launches a
diatribe against the professional competence of senior military
advisers, “who failed to provide military counsel because
they were intimidated ‘yes men’ or who failed to recognize the
complexity of war” (ibid). Berman’s prodigy,
Hoffman, makes a case that the Zion-Con ‘masters of Iraq war
policy’ were not responsible for the disastrous war – it was the
military officers “who failed to provide candid advice, who
fail in their duty to their immediate superiors and stay in
their posts (who) are guilty of dereliction of duty to the
President, the Congress and their subordinates.” (ibid) The
same Zion-Cons who drove out and forced the resignation of
American generals who had dissented with Wolfowitz, Feith,
Abrams and Rumsfeld are now judged and condemned for dereliction
of duty by the same Zion-Cons.
The Zion-Cons follow the Goebbels
principle: ‘The Big Lie repeated often enough can convince the
stupid masses.’
The Berman-Hoffman FPRC
counter-attack against American military officers speaking truth
to power is a limp effort to deflect attention from the Zion-Con
policymakers’ treasonous behavior and their role in degrading
the US military. The FPRC document blaming the military and
unnamed civilians (exclusively non-Zionist) for the Iraq debacle
is one of the numerous variants on the same theme by Zionist
academic militarists justifying the power of the ZPC in the name
of civilian supremacy, without spelling out the national
loyalties of the ‘civilian’ masters of career military officers.
According to a detailed report
published in the Financial Times (November 12, 2007), the US
military is not buying the Zion-Con line: “Admiral William
Fallon, head of Central Command which oversees military
operations in the Middle East, said that while dealing with Iran
was a ‘challenge’ a military strike was not in the offing.”
(Page 1 and 9) Backed by many active senior officers and
numerous retired generals, Fallon has dismissed the Zion-Con
intellectuals and propagandists as ignorant war-mongers. In his
own words: “It astounds me that so many pundits and other s
are spending so much time yakking about this topic (of a
military attack on Iran)” (FT: November 12, 2007 p.9).
In direct repudiation of the ZPC’s
frenetic campaigning for economic sanctions leading to a
military attack, top US military officials and even Secretary of
Defense Gates have for the time being blocked the military
option. Addressing the Zionist strategy of sequential wars
against Israel’s enemies (Iran, Syria, Lebanon), Fallon stated:
“It seems to me that we don’t need more problems”. His
remarks are understood to reflect the views of the majority of
senior officers in the Middle East combat zone but not Bush’s
politically ambitious General Petraeus, who worked with his
Israeli-Mossad partners (in Northern Iraq “Kurdistan”) in
training and arming the Kurdish militia death squads –
Peshmerga.
Retired Generals Anthony Zinni and
Joseph Hoar, both former heads of CENTCOM, have pointed their
fingers at the menace of the Zion-Cons and Israel-Firsters in
the government. According to Gen. Hoar, “There is no doubt
that an element in the government wants to strike Iran. But the
good news is that the Secretary of Defense and senior military
are against it” (FT November 12, 2007). The forced and
voluntary retirement, including the indictment and jailing of
some highly placed Zion-Cons in the Pentagon, White House,
Treasury and State Departments have weakened their stranglehold
over US policy in the White House. The top Zion-Con
policymakers who have left or are in jail include Rumsfeld
(Gentile Zionist), Wolfowitz, Feith, Franklin, Shumsky, Perle –
in the Pentagon; Irving Libby, Wurmser, Ari Fleicher, Frum in
the White House and many others too numerous to name.
While the Zion-Cons
retain power in the higher circles of government, at this
moment, they are not able to run roughshod over their military
critics and opponents as they did in the run-up to the Iraq
war. In part this is because of the horrendous situation
resulting from their war in Iraq, which has undermined their
credibility and turned the vast majority of the US public
against their war. Equally the Zion-Cons’ war and the
disastrous impact of a prolonged (5 year) urban guerrilla
resistance on the US Armed Forces, in terms of loss of
personnel, morale, junior and senior officers and the
over-extension of the US military to the detriment of the
defense of the US Empire’s interests around the world has served
as a ‘wake-up call’ for senior military command.
Drawing on their experience from
the invasion of Iraq, few if any accept the Israeli-Zion-Con
‘evaluations’ of the outcome and response to a military attack.
They remember too well the optimistic propaganda put out by
Zionist academic ideologues like Kagan and Cohen that the
‘Iraqis will celebrate and welcome American forces into Baghdad
as liberators’.
According to a report in the
Financial Times, retired General Zinni speaking for the many
active senior officers says ‘even a limited American attack
could push Teheran to retaliate in a number of ways such as
firing missiles at Israel, Saudi oilfields and US bases in Iraq,
mining the Straits (sic) of Hormuz and activating sleeper
terrorist cells around the world.” (FT op cit). He
concluded by pointing out, “It is not a matter of a
one-strike option. It is the classic question of… ‘and then
what’?”. A more circumspect criticism of the Iran war
reasoning has been voiced by Admiral Mike Muller. He objected
to the US-Israeli agents “putting the military option on the
table”. Admiral Muller added, “We’re in a conflict in
two countries out there right now. We have to be incredibly
thoughtful about the potential of in fact getting into a
conflict with a third country in that part of the world.”(FT
Op Cit).
One of the biggest dangers in
forcing the US into a war with Iran is an Israeli sneak air
attack, in which it destroys Iranian military installations
causing Iran to retaliate against the US, Israel’s ally, main
financier and armaments supplier. An Israeli air strike is not
the only war provocation – the Mossad is deeply in involved in
training Kurdish commandos to carry out terrorist cross-border
attacks from Iraq, killing Iranian civilians and soldiers,
bombing military installations and collecting intelligence,
hoping to provoke a large-scale Iranian military response
against ‘Kurdistan’. Iranian retaliation against Mossad trained
Kurdish terrorists could then be twisted by Zion-Con ideologues
and their ‘political elements in Washington’ (to quote Admiral
Fallon) into a major invasion of Iraq, with the hope of
convincing the Bush White House to ‘counter-attack in defense of
our troops in Iraq’.
The Israeli regime and its Fifth
Column in the United States have been pressing for unilateral
intervention against Iran, preferably military, ever since
2003. The Daily Alert, mouthpiece of the 52 biggest
Jewish organizations (The Presidents of the Major American
Jewish Organizations) has published scores of articles each
week, characterizing the Europeans as ‘foot draggers’, ‘weak on
Iran’, ‘playing down’ or ‘failing’ to take serious the
‘existential threat to Israel’. The US Zion-Cons have their own
‘State Department’ and ‘overseas’ missions, with their own
‘foreign policy-makers and spokespeople’. They meet with
European, Asian and Latin American heads of State in the US or
during ‘visits’ overseas, mobilizing advising, organizing and
strengthening Zion-Con outposts throughout Europe and beyond.
Their international reach has succeeded in a number of important
decisions and appointments, most notably in Brussels and in
Sarkozy’s appointment of Zionist fanatic Bernard Kouchner as
France’s Minister of Foreign Relations. In a rather crude and
undiplomatic show of Zionist loyalty immediately upon taking
office, Kouchner declared France to be in favor of a military
option against Iran. He was later pressured to retract, but
Sarkozy, who himself is no minor league Israel supporter, has
echoed Kouchner’s line. One of Kouchner’s first acts was to
travel to American-occupied Iraq to express his personal support
for the occupation. As a result of Israeli and Zion-Con
pressure on the White House, France, Germany and England have
all supported the escalation of sanctions against Iran…the
Zionist strategy of ‘strangle the economy now and bomb later’.
The Zion-Cons’ weakness is
relative: Although they no longer can purge (or ‘retire’) or
silence senior military officers opposed to their Mid East Wars
for Israel, they are extremely effective in discrediting any and
all impartial international bodies and reports which fail to
support the Israeli line that Iran represents an ‘existential
threat’ to its survival (code language for ‘challenges or
resists Israel’s drive to dominate the region’). Predictably
taking their cue from the Israeli foreign office’s dismissal of
the United Nations International Atomic Energy Agency’s report
(November 15, 2007) which documented that Iran had no nuclear
arms program and no capacity to construct a nuclear weapon at
least for the next five years, the ZPC unleashed a mass media
propaganda campaign attacking the IAEA chairman as a
‘pro-Iranian’ agent (Jerusalem Post November 16, 2007).
At the same time the news ‘reports’ used ‘potted quotes’ from
the Report, mentioning only the IAEA ‘reservations’ and the
‘questions unanswered’ and ‘issues not addressed’. US Senator
from Tel Aviv, Joseph Lieberman combined both a distorted (or
blatantly falsified) version of the IAEA Report and a vicious
attack on its Chief, El Baradei, claiming that the Report ‘made
it clear (sic) that Iran was still hiding (sic) large parts of
its nuclear program’ (Jerusalem Post November 16, 2007).
A careful or even casual reading of the IAEA Report shows not a
single paragraph, line or word stating that Iran was ‘hiding
large parts of its nuclear program’ as Lieberman accused. Ever
mendacious, Lieberman, who had publicly called for an immediate
military attack on ‘Iran, Iraq and Syria’ just days after the
September 11, 2001 terrorist attack, viciously attacked El
Baradei for ‘writing in the report that Iran was cooperating and
for not recommending a new round of sanctions’. In other words,
the Zion-Cons with their mediocre academic mouth-pieces can save
the UN, the IAEA and El Baradei’s time and money in site visits
and delicate radiologic and satellite monitoring by handing over
the Israeli Foreign Office’s pre-packaged ‘press’ handouts or
‘sexed-up intelligence reports’. The Zion-Cons make up in zeal
what they lack in fact: Cooking up threats and telling the eager
world that Iran is not cooperative and should be heavily
sanctioned, starved or bombed into submission. The Zion-Cons
follow the guidelines of the Jewish state’s agenda, to turn Iran
into a Gaza Strip of deprivation and desperation.
The Israeli dismissal of the UN
report on Iran, and the Zion-Con falsification of its contest
and attack on its chief negotiator, El Baradei, was echoed by
the While House and the Zion-colonized Congress. With a lack of
originality characteristic of US Middle East policy-makers, they
also cited the potted quotes from the IAEA Report to justify
harsher sanctions and a greater degree of confrontation. The
purpose is to provoke a breakup of the dialog long established
between the IAEA and Iran. The Zion-Con-White House strategy is
to implicate the IAEA in their savage attacks on Iran, and via
harsher economic sanctions end Iran’s cooperation with the IAEA.
Having forced the IAEA out they would then accuse Iran of
rejecting dialog and cooperation with the United Nations. This
contrived scenario (like the earlier phony claims that ‘Saddam
threw out the weapons inspectors’) would set the stage for a
US-British led military attack under the pretext that all
diplomatic approaches failed to deter Iran’s nuclear program
which the IAEA denied had any military component. It ill
behooves anyone to actually consult the IAEA website and read
the reports’ favorable account of Iran’s willing cooperation in
providing site visits, documents and responses in answer to many
of the key issues raised by the IAEA, the US and the EU. The
report ultimately refutes the major accusations cooked up by the
Zion-Cons and their political assets in the White House, State
Department and Congress. The most important information
contained in the IAEA Report is that its inspectors found no
evidence of any Iranian effort to develop nuclear weapons.
US Military-Israel-Firsters: Fundamental
Issues in Dispute
There are at least 5
fundamental issues in dispute between senior American military
officials and ZPC:
These include (1) the nature of
the Iranian threat: The ZPC argues that Iran represents an
immediate deadly threat to the US, Israel, Iraq and the Gulf
States. The American officers do not see the Iranians as a
threat because they have engaged the Iranians in stopping the
flow of arms and fighters to the Iraqi resistance; they
recognize Iranian positive diplomatic overtures to all the Gulf
States including Saudi Arabia; the US armada in the Persian Gulf
is confident they can act as a deterrent to any Iranian attack;
and finally the US Central Command know they are in the Persian
Gulf facing Iran because of the White House’s provocative
offensive strategy – and that Iran has not demonstrated anything
but a defensive capability. Senior American officers view
favorably Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s offer “to
discuss with Arab nations a plan to enrich uranium outside the
region in a neutral country such as Switzerland.”(Dow Jones
News Service in Saudia Arabia, quoted in BBC News November 18,
2007). Not a single major television or print media in the US
ran the Iranian president’s offer – as would be predictable in
our Zionized media.
(2) Uranium Program The
Israelis, the only nuclear power in the Middle East, and among
the top five nuclear powers, argue that Iran, which does not
have a single nuclear weapon or even a weapons program, is an
‘existential (sic) threat’ to Israel, the Middle East, Europe
and the United States. This is one argument that the ZPC have
used to convince the Democratic Party majority in Congress, the
White House and the pro-Israel wing of the US Peace Movement to
escalate economic sanctions and keep the ‘military option’ on
the table.
The only problem is that most
European, Asian, African and Latin American diplomats, experts,
the majority of world public opinion and most senior American
officers don’t buy Israel’s shrill disinformation. All legal
experts who have given a perfunctory look at the
non-proliferation agreement (NPA) insist that there is
absolutely no clause or article prohibiting uranium enrichment.
Intelligence experts and US military report that Iran at the
earliest may have sufficient enriched uranium by 2010 and may be
able to produce a low-yield weapon by 2010-2015. The job of the
ZPC, pursued at full speed, is to bury the NPA under mountains
of fabrications, arguing that enriching uranium itself is a
violation of ‘international law’. The purpose of this attempt
to concoct a full state of belligerency is to escalate US and
Israeli attacks on Iran and hasten the timing of a surprise,
offensive onslaught. This is exactly the reason why American
intelligence briefings and IAEA reports have aroused the fury of
Israel and its operatives in the US and their calling for El
Baradei’s dismissal.
Iranian Arms to Iraq: The
US Military and CENTCOM have repeatedly denied, especially in
light of another ZPC onslaught to the contrary, that the Iranian
government is supplying arms, especially roadside mines or IEDs
to Iraqi ‘terrorists’ and its allied militia forces. Contrary
to the assertion of the leading Israeli spokes-people in the US
Senate, the US military categorically denies that the IEDs are
made in Iran, having discovered bomb-making factories in Iraq
and from interrogation and actually studying the construction
and contents of the IEDs.
Zionist-colonized Senators led by
Hillary Clinton have followed the lead of Israeli Senatorial
Spokesman Joseph Lieberman, rather than consulting with the
American military, and are mouthing the rhetoric of Iranian arms
killing American soldiers (FT November 12, 2007 p.9).
Following the Lieberman-Israeli-ZPC propaganda blitz, the US
Senate voted in favor of the Lieberman-Kyle resolution naming
Iran’s principle border defense force, the Republican Guard, a
‘terrorist organization’, moving one step closer to an attack.
The hollowness of this resolution is reflected in the fact to
not one of any of the US’s servile allies chose to follow its
lead in denouncing the Republican Guard. Nothing more clearly
demonstrates the Israeli-ZPC colonization of the US congress
than on questions of war and peace, when the legislature is more
likely to follow the dictates of Israeli propagandists than to
consult its own senior military officials.
Consequences of an
attack on Iran: The main concern of the ZPC and its
political clients in the White House and Congress is that an
attack on Iran will secure the safety of Israel, eliminating a
‘mortal enemy’, preventing ‘another Holocaust’ and stopping a
‘new Hitler’. In pursuit of this policy, Israel’s US agents
have repeatedly blocked every open-ended Iranian effort to
cooperate with the US against the Taliban, Al Queda and other
‘terrorists groups’ as is profusely documented by two former
high-ranking policy experts from the Bush Administration’s
National Security Council, Hiliary Mann and Flynt Leverett,.
(see ‘The Secret History of the Impending War with Iran That the
White House Doesn’t Want You to Know’, Esquire Magazine,
November 2007). Every Iranian offer of unconditional
negotiation and cooperation with the US to fight terrorism, as
the US defines it, was rejected by key extremist Zion-Cons in
the Pentagon (Feith), the Vice President’s office (Irving
Libby), the National Security Council (Elliott Abrams and the
President’s National Security Adviser (Stephen Hadley, a zealous
Gentile Zion-Con among the brotherhood). The Zion-cons paint a
picture of an air attack which would simultaneously blow up all
Iranian nuclear research facilities, infrastructure, airfields,
military bases and ports…preventing any and all Iranian counter
attacks against US strategic interests in the region. They
further embellish their totalitarian vision by arguing that the
Islamic republic would be overthrown by a populace grateful to
the Americans for bombing their country, destroying its
infrastructure and killing thousands. The Neo-Cons’ infantile
delusions then lead them to project the emergence of a
pro-Western Iranian secular state favorable to American
occupation of the Middle East and, of course, wholeheartedly
renouncing any ‘existential’ threats to the ‘survival’ of its
new ally, Israel.
On the issue of the
consequences of an attack on Iran, the US military is totally at
odds with the Israeli-ZPC propaganda. Senior military officials
based on real estimates on the ground and from hard data from
intelligence experts, estimate that Iran will be in a position
to retaliate and cause enormous immediate and long-term damage
to strategic US and global interests. CENTCOM estimates that
Iran will set-off air to sea missiles aimed at the US fleet
stationed in the Persian Gulf and land-to-land missiles
destroying oil production sites in the Gulf States, creating a
major world oil shortage, doubling oil prices and provoking a
world recession as energy scarcities paralyze production.
Secondly the Iranians will send several tens of thousands of its
elite forces across the border into Iraq, joining with its Iraqi
Shia allies to overrun US bases and endanger the lives of the
160,000 US troops currently in Iraq. This would undermine the
entire Iraq war effort, inflicting a strategic defeat and
further undermine US military capacity in the Middle East and
elsewhere.
Thirdly the Iranians
will be able to easily block the Strait of Hormuz so that one
third of the Middle East’s oil shipments will be paralyzed.
Fourthly, military
intelligence estimates that Iranian ‘sleeper cells’ in Asia,
Africa, Europe and perhaps in North America will be activated
and engage in ‘big impact’ terrorist missions. Whatever the
likelihood of this scenario, it is clear that the US military
anticipates major protests and perhaps even the violent
overthrow of its clients in the Middle East, if not elsewhere.
Zion-Cons have neither
countered military intelligence estimates with any credible
counter-facts, nor even seriously considered the likely
disastrous consequences affecting the US, Europe and Asia: They
only consider Israel’s ‘security’ and its regional ambitions.
No Zionophile or Zion-Con has considered the enormous costs in
terms of US lives and damage to the fragile economy and society
of a full scale third prolonged war. In effect, the Zion-cons
will kill their own US goose, which has laid golden eggs for
Israel for almost 6 decades. It is an example of the Zion-Cons’
supreme arrogance and sense of their own power that they feel
they can plunge the US into a Third Asian war which will
devastate the US economy and cause world-wide energy scarcity,
and still secure their yearly ‘tribute’ of $3 Billion Dollars
foreign aid for Israel as well as guaranteeing oil for Israel by
diverting it from the needs of American consumers and
industries. It is clear that in doing a cost-benefit analysis
on a US attack on Iran, Israeli and ZPC operatives have
approvingly figured that the costs are on the US side of the
ledger and the benefits are for the Israelis. Were it known,
American public opinion might disapprove.
The main difference is
that the US does not have a comparable Washington Power
Configuration in Tel Aviv to influence Israeli policy to match
the Jewish state’s Zionist Power Configuration which shapes and
influences US Middle East policy.
Military-Zioncon: Punch and Counter-Punch
By the end of 2007 it
is clear that the US military, led by CENTCOM Commander, Admiral
William Fallon and Security of Defense Gates, have successfully,
if temporarily contained the strenuous Israeli-Zion-Con military
thrust to war. Though Gates backtracked under ZPC pressure and
later denied that he had taken the military option ‘off the
table’. In response, the Zion-Cons launched an end-around
tactic by intensifying their efforts to impose a global economic
blockade to strangle the Iranian economy. The Zionized White
House has pressured and secured the whole-hearted support of
Gordon Brown of Great Britain, and Sarkozy of France for a set
of economic sanctions that will in effect rupture all dialog
with the IAEA. This is the strategic goal of the Zion-Cons: no
dialog, no diplomacy, and blockaded economy, ripe for
Anglo-French-American bombing. The Zion-cons have shrewdly
avoided a head on confrontation with Fallon and his allies.
They recognize that a bruising battle in which they might expose
their Fifth Column credentials and in which their ‘anti-Semitic’
slanders against a popular patriotic American general might
backfire by finally arousing a silent, latent anti-Zionist
majority to speak out. Since the military would be called upon
to carry out the military option which it strongly opposes, the
Zion-Cons turn to their automatic, rubber-stamp majority in the
US Congress and especially their most zealous Zionists in the
federal bureaucracy. Treasury Department functionary Levey has
devoted all of his working time browbeating, banning and
blacklisting any and all businesses and banks dealing directly
or indirectly with Iran or its trading partners.
Judeo-Centrism: From Ghetto Defense to
Imperial Ambitions
One of the driving
forces of the Zionist Power Configuration’s accumulation of
political power is their ability to totally displace
pre-existing non-Zionist and anti-Zionist organizations from
influence in the Jewish community over the past 60 years.
Secondly the formation of the ZPC resulted from the unification
and centralization of a vast array of disparate groups and local
community organizations around a single dominant political
issue: unconditional and total support for a foreign power,
Israel, with a kind of intolerant religious fervor which in the
past burnt dissenters in public displays of piety and today
hounds them from public office. In the past and in the recent
period, there was a popular Yiddish saying in evaluating public
policy: ‘Is it good for the Jews?’ This narrow, parochial
viewpoint had special meaning at a time when Jews were a
persecuted minority trying to maximize their security and
minimize risks in relatively closed societies. In recent times,
in certain New York intellectual circles, it was part of a
jocular repertoire designed at one and the same time to recall
an earlier identity and to mock some of the overweening
pretensions of new rich upstarts, especially real estate
billionaires who displace and exploit low-income and minority
tenants while making generous contributions to Israel.
But what was defensive
and perhaps justified in an earlier era has become a deadly
practice in the context of affluence, political power and
organizational cohesion. A Judeocentric view of the world,
which sees the embodiment of ‘what’s good for the Jews’ in
providing unconditional support to an aggressive colonial state
(Israel), has become a formula for disaster. In the new
context where Jews represent almost a quarter of US billionaires
and occupy high positions of government decision-making, the
dominant Zionist discourse and practice has resulted not in
defensive measures protecting a persecuted minority but
offensive actions prejudicing the American majority. In the
case of Iraq, it has led to the deaths of over a million Iraqi
civilians and the displacement of many millions more. In the US
it has resulted in milking the US taxpayers annually for
well-over $3 billion dollars to subsidize an Israeli-Jewish
population with an annual per capita income of $30,000 and
universal health care. The Judeo-centric view as interpreted by
the Israel-Firsters has led to the sacrifice of trillions of
dollars and thousands of lives in Iraq. In the US, Judeocentric
narrative has led to the denial of our democratic rights, our
freedom to debate our Zionist problem, and the ZPC’s support for
Israel’s pursuit of Middle East dominance through American
military power. Judeocentrism is not the ideology or practice
of the great majority of US Jews, even less a rising number of
young, better-educated Jews with no deep ideological ties to
Israel. But Judeocentrism is the perspective which guides the
organized, active minority driving the major Zionist
organizations and their billionaire camp followers. And it
is always the organized, zealous and well-financed minority,
which assumes ‘legitimate’ claim to speak ‘for the
community’ – despite the protests of numerous un-organized
Jewish intellectual critics.
Conclusion
The deepening and
all-important conflict between the pro-Israel warmongers and the
anti-war American senior officers is reaching a bitter climax.
As the US military disintegrates under prolonged colonial
warfare, the ZPC intensifies its campaign for a third war for
Israel and against Iran, a war which will totally shatter the US
military forces.
The fundamental
question emerging for most senior officers, in private
gatherings and informal discussions is ‘Who commands our
Commander in Chief?’ The deep animosity of US senior active
military officers frequently erupts at the ZPC’s careless and
callous disregard for American lives. They disdainfully refer
to the Zion-Con policymakers as ‘arm-chair military strategists’
who never fought a war, never shot or been shot. At one level,
the senior military officers are appalled by the ignorance of
the Zion-Con military ‘experts’ and policy-makers featured by
the Zion-Con controlled mass media. One of the most frequent
military criticisms is that the Zion-Con policy-makers don’t
have an‘exit strategy’ – attributing it to their lack of
knowledge or strategic thinking. In reality, the lack of
Zion-Con concern for a realistic exit strategy is because the
Zion-Cons are concerned (in light of Israel’s priorities) only
with an entry policy, namely degrading the invaded
countries’ military and economic potential. Secondly the
Zion-Cons do not have an exit strategy because they believe the
US should stay, colonize, build bases and engage in a prolonged
war for a chimerical total victory.
The question of ‘who
commands the Commander in Chief’ goes to the entire core of our
constitutional order, because it raises the deeper question of
‘who defines the national interests’ for which the
military are fighting? If as we have documented, the ZPC has
effectively colonized the White House and Legislative Branches
(and the Justice Department and the appointment of an
ultra-Zionist Attorney General Michael Mulkasey and Israel-First
Head of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff), to serve the
interests of a foreign power (Israel) in what sense does a
colonized political system serve the interests of a democratic
public? Does there exist a primary condition that makes it
possible to speak of a democracy, namely national
self-determination, de-colonization necessary for the
re-democratization of American political institutions?
So far the only
effective resistance to colonization has comes from the US
military. The military is a non-democratic, hierarchical
institution but an institution representative of the public’s
opposition to colonial encroachments.
What would normally be
considered the prime movers challenging Zion-Con colonization,
namely the President, Congress, the political parties or even
the antiwar movements have abdicated their responsibilities --
they have been in part or whole colonized and neutralized.
By default, it has
fallen to senior military commanders who reject being commanded
by the ZPC at the service of Israel. Paradoxically, it is the
military, which has taken over the struggle against an offensive
war with Iran, a struggle where the American peace movement has
failed. It is the military, which has challenged the Zion-Con
agenda, where the Congress has been corrupted and capitulated
for reasons of campaign financing, political blackmail and
double loyalty.
Where does that leave
us, as democrats and anti-colonists?
We should be able to
have both an independent de-colonized and democratic America,
governed by patriotic Americans. But suppose we have to choose
between de-colonization led by the military or a corrupt
colonized electoral system – what should be done?
The ideal solution
would be a revitalized civil society including secularist
citizens, non-fundamentalist Muslims and Christians, and
non-Zionist Jews, organized in an anti-war, anti-colonial
movement and political parties allied with patriotic officers to
‘re-found the republic’. The purpose would be to establish a
republic to ‘defend the heartland’ from fires, floods, economic
pillage, terrorists, ecological predators and foreign agents
acting on behalf of alien regimes. Can it happen? We shall
see. What is becoming clear however is that the anti-colonial
imperative is growing stronger by the day, if it doesn’t come
from below, it may have to come from above.
Click on "comments" below to read or post comments
Comment Guidelines
Be succinct, constructive and
relevant to the story.
We encourage engaging, diverse
and meaningful commentary. Do not include
personal information such as names, addresses,
phone numbers and emails. Comments falling
outside our guidelines – those including
personal attacks and profanity – are not
permitted.
See our complete
Comment Policy
and
use this link to notify us if you have concerns
about a comment.
We’ll promptly review and remove any
inappropriate postings.
Send Page To a Friend
In accordance
with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material
is distributed without profit to those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving the
included information for research and educational
purposes. Information Clearing House has no
affiliation whatsoever with the originator of
this article nor is Information ClearingHouse
endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
|
