THE NEW AMERICAN CENTURY is a compelling factual history of neoconservatism and its influence on US Foreign Policy in the Middle East during the first decade of the twenty-first century. Click on image above for details.

Friday, June 28, 2013


In George Orwell’s classic political sci-fi novel 1984 one of the four ministries that controlled the people of Oceania was the Ministry of Truth. Its sole purpose was to re-write all of history on a daily basis to suit the current political agenda of the Inner Party government that controlled Oceania. Orwell’s hero is Winston Smith who works at ‘Minitrue’ as an editor revising historical records.

In 2013 there is no Ministry of Truth per se but there is Commentary, a political magazine for extreme right-wing neoconservatives who once ruled America and much of the Western world during the Bush/Blair/Howard/Aznar/Berlusconi era of attempting to force the Islamic world into becoming ‘democratic’. Despite being no longer in power, neoconservatives like to pretend they still wield some influence which they do by writing propaganda articles that reflects their current thinking in the hope that people who have real influence in the affairs of government actually read the stuff they put out.

One of Commentary’s most senior propagandists is Jonathan Tobin.

Today Tobin provides a classic example of neoconservative historical revisionism. He writes in one his posts today:

This is… an administration that did a lot to encourage the first round of Arab spring protests in Egypt that took down longtime U.S. ally Hosni Mubarak and ultimately replaced him with a Muslim Brotherhood government that may be far worse than deposed authoritarian.

Tobin infers that Obama should not have encouraged the protests that eventually led to the downfall of “U.S. ally Hosni Murbarak”.

But Tobin is being disingenuous at best here, or downright deceitful at worst, because at the beginning of the Arab Spring revolt in Egypt, the neoconservatives – including Tobin – were encouraging the uprising to get rid of the Murbarak dictatorship to replace it with democracy. It was only when it became obvious that the Muslim Brotherhood was going to win the day at their first taste of ‘democracy’ that Tobin realised that he and his fellow neocons had backed the wrong horse. In December 2012 Tobin wrote:

Many of us had some hope that the Arab Spring would bring democracy to an Arab world where it is largely unknown. But by now only those unwilling to face reality are still pretending the Brotherhood are just a bunch of Muslim democrats.

Tobin has gone from ‘hoping to bring democracy to an Arab world’ to blaming Obama for ‘taking down longtime U.S. ally Hosni Murbarak’ as though Tobin and his fellow travellers had no part in it. The lie is exposed.

Tobin is not a good propagandist. He forgets that Winston Smith was just a fictional character and never did get around to revising Tobin’s past articles.

Clearly the neocons do not have complete control of the Ministry of Truth – at least, not just yet they haven’t.      

Saturday, June 22, 2013


Back in March 2007 I wrote here that the Israelis and the US were attempting to wedge the Sunni minority and the Shia majority in Iraq in order to project those differences throughout the region to create animosity between predominately Sunni nations in the hope of alienating the predominately Shia nation of Iran.

Apart from the friction between Saddam Hussein’s minority Sunni led government and the rest of the Shia population in Iraq, most Sunni and Shia folk throughout the rest of the Middle East had lived in relatively peaceful coexistence. What trouble did bubble up between the two sects was usually stirred up by the Israelis with the civil war that went on in Lebanon in the 1970s and 1980s being a classic example.

The reason Israel is anxious to keep the two at each others throats is because it is Israel to a large extent that actually united the two groups – until now. Until recently Hezbollah (Shia) and Hamas (Sunni) were close allies united by their common cause of defending their respective lands against Israeli aggression and territorial expansion. Hamas even had an office in Damascus where some of its leaders were domiciled because it was too dangerous for them to live in the Gaza Strip where they could be targeted for assassination by Israeli death squads. Hamas were even supplied with weapons from Iran. And at one point the Saudis actually signed a ‘Pledge of Friendship’ with the Iranians in an effort to thwart sectarian violence from spreading out of Iraq.

But all that has been to no avail.

When the war started in Syria and moved on from being a secular rebellion to become a sectarian battle it was hoped that, at the very least, the sectarianism could be contained within the bounds of Syria and between Syrians. It wasn’t long, however, before the Israelis and the US encouraged the Saudis and the Qatari’s to arm the Sunni rebels and promote foreign Sunni fighters to join the rebels in the war against the Syrian government. The rest we all now know about. You’ve seen and heard about the atrocities being committed against each other. Each day it gets worse.

But what of the future? Can, once the madness that is the Syrian war is over, the two religious sects resolve their differences or have the Israelis and their neocon friends pushed them beyond any reconciliation in the near future? On the other hand, any wrong move from Israel against Islam generally could just as easily see the two sects unite to fight a common foe.  

Friday, June 21, 2013


If there’s one thing neocon commentator ‘Mad Max’ Boot can be relied upon it’s his inability to even pretend – despite his efforts – that intervention in the Syrian war is for any reason other than an opportunity to weaken Israel’s arch enemy Iran who Boot says, ‘whether we like it or not, we are in conflict with’.

Boot’s latest piece in Commentary exposes his real interests in getting Obama to use airpower against al-Assad. He ignores the reality that the Jihadi extremists within the rebel ranks have the upper hand as far as the opposition is concerned and that the downfall of al-Assad will likely lead to chaos in a post-Assad Syria. Boot claims that supplying arms only to selected rebels and then supporting them with airpower will lead to the downfall of al-Assad which will be a blow to Iran. And, of course, if it’s a blow to Iran, then it’s a blow to Hezbollah as well – which is exactly what Boot and his warmongering neocon mates want.

Boot also ignores the fact that Syria under al-Assad actually provided Israel with a degree of stability, particularly on the Golan Heights front. That stability will disappear if the Jihadists gain control of Syria. But stability doesn’t suit Israel’s long term agenda for the region. If Israel simply left Hezbollah alone and stopped provoking them by flying almost daily low-level sorties over Lebanon, then Hezbollah would not be a threat to Israel. However, it would also deprive Israel of an excuse to one day attack Hezbollah and occupy south Lebanon – as, indeed, it has done in the past – if and when Hezbollah reacts to Israel’s provocations.

What’s happening in Syria today is just a part of a long term strategy aimed ultimately at regime change in Iran and provoking a regional war which will allow Israel to realise its ambitions of ridding itself of all of its enemies, including Hezbollah as well as Hamas and Fatah, and creating a Greater Israel.

‘Mad Max’ likes to think that the US is at war with Iran because Israel is. The fact is; the US is not at war with Iran and, if it ever does go to war against Iran, there would be no telling how it would end – for the world or for Israel.

The world is far better off leaving Mad Max Boot to his delusions.

Wednesday, June 19, 2013


It was two years – almost to the day – that I last commented about talks with the Taliban that might have ended the war in Afghanistan. Nothing came of it. Nor did anything come of the talks that were proposed back in October 2008. Since then at least 2287 allied soldiers have died and only your deity knows how many civilians have been killed since. Now the Western allies are suggesting that talks might still be a good idea.

But, given the history of past proposals to talks with the Taliban, you don’t have to be an ‘expert analyst’ to foretell that talks are likely to be “complex, long and messy”.

Despite my pessimism, however, one can but hope that something meaningful might come of these talks before anyone else dies. I doubt, though, that the warmongering neoconservatives will see it quite the same way.

Sunday, June 16, 2013


An overwhelming victory for the comparatively moderate Hassan Rowhani avoids a run-off election that was set for next Friday. Winning more than 50% of the vote means that Rowhani is indisputably Iran’s next President.

However, just because he is touted as being a ‘moderate’ does not mean to say that Iran is suddenly pro-Western or will stop pursuing nuclear energy. All it means is that Israel and the US will find it a little more difficult to effect ‘regime change’. Iran is also likely to continue supporting Bashir al-Assad in Syria and Hezbollah in Lebanon.

As the country’s one-time chief nuclear negotiator, Rowhani knows all about the ins and outs of how to deal with the West with regard to Iran’s nuclear ambitions and is likely to take a far more pragmatic approach in dealing with the West in contrast to the somewhat confrontational approach the out-going President Ahmadinejad had, particularly when addressing Israel’s complaints. His approach is likely to upset the Israeli hard right who were relying heavily on Ahmadinejad’s bellicose attitude to possibly provide casus belli for Israel to strike Iran. If Rowhani decides to fully bare Iran’s nuclear assets for inspection by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) then Israel’s hard right and their neoconservative supporters are going to have to find other excuses to find fault with Iran.

One of the main problems the far right of Israel and their neoconservative supporters have with Iran is Iran’s support of Israel’s arch-enemy Hezbollah in Lebanon. For decades Israeli Zionists have coveted the south of Lebanon to be part of a Greater Israel. Israel on a number of occasions have sought excuses to invade and occupy south Lebanon but have never been able to hang on to their conquests, always eventually being beaten back to Israel by a tenacious Hezbollah intent on defending Lebanon against Israel attack, invasion and aggression. With Rowhani now at the Iranian helm, Iran’s support for Hezbollah is unlikely to change meaning that Israel may now concentrate its propaganda efforts and redirect its rhetoric against Iran based more on Iran’s support for Hezbollah than Iran’s supposed pursuit of nuclear weapons.

Regime change in Iran is essential to Israel’s long term dreams of creating a Greater Israel – no matter who is Iran’s president. Israel will keep up its pressure against Iran, but expect the rhetoric now to be more about Hezbollah and less about nuclear weapons with which to ‘wipe Israel of the map’.

Saturday, June 15, 2013


If it demonstrates nothing else, America’s decision to support the rebels against Syrian President Bashir al-Assad indicates that the US has arrived at a long term endgame plan for the future of both Syria and the region – and it won’t be just the removal of al-Assad from office.

The opposition in Syria is now dominated by pan-Islamic Sunni jihadists. In the event of al-Assad’s downfall the last thing the Israelis and the US want is a new Syrian government made up of Islamists who despise Israel more than they do the pro-Assad Shia foe they’re fighting now. Indeed, if there is anything both sides fighting in Syria hate even more than each other, it’s Israel.

One could be forgiven for thinking that the Israelis and the US might have considered al-Assad the better of two evils but, since they clearly haven’t, one can only assume that both Israel and the US have some other plan up their sleeve that will prevent the jihadists from gaining any power – and that can only be achieved by having ‘boots on the ground’ in Syria and even elsewhere.

Since January of last year the US has been rotating thousands of troops through Israel ostensibly for training and joint exercises. Americans have been training Israeli troops using the experience the Americans have gained from action in Afghanistan and Iraq. Now, it seems that experience may be used in Syria just over the border from Israel via the Golan Heights.

The new circumstances put Russia in an awkward position. Now that there’s a possibility that the US may enter the fray directly, the Russians may reconsider their position and back off supplying the S-300 surface to air missiles that had been promised to Assad. While the Russians would have had no problem with them being used against Israeli aircraft, the prospect of them being used against American aircraft with American pilots and crew if the US decide to enforce a no-fly zone may well be too mush of a risk to take.

Despite the UN having taken a stance against arming either side of the conflict, it now seems that Israel and the US, together with their allies France and the UK, have spent considerable time planning their next moves to dislodge al-Assad. The timing is also significant considering that the announcement to supply arms came on the same day as the Iranian elections which have been overshadowed in the news by Syrian war. While results are expected today (Saturday 15 June 2013), a clear winner of Iran’s election may not be known until after the next round of elections on Friday 21 June when a run-off election may be held if no winner emerges today with more than 50% of the vote. No matter who wins, however, the result is unlikely to change Iran’s foreign policy relating to Syria, Hezbollah and Israel, and nor will it likely influence Iran’s determination to pursue nuclear power. The best that the US an their Western allies could hope for is that there will be post-election turmoil in Iran as there was in 2007 though this is unlikely since President Ahmadinejad is prevented from running again.

These are just some of the considerations that will determine the regions future but the long-term agendas of Israel and the US supported by their neoconservative allies will not change; both want eventual regime change in Iran and Syria and both want to see the demise of Hezbollah in Lebanon.

Wednesday, June 12, 2013


Max Boot, the ultra right-wing neoconservative commentator, seems to have become confused over who is fighting who in Syria these days. He writes in Commentary today that it’s not too late for the US and their allies to arm and support the rebels – but only the moderate secular rebels fighting al-Assad. He says:

I still believe it is not too late to tip the balance of power not only between Assad and the rebels but also between rebel factions, empowering the more mainstream groups and draining power from the Al Nusrah Front and its ilk.

The problem is that the ‘al-Nusrah Front’, sometimes known as the Islamic State of Iraq and Greater Syria, are now the ‘mainstream group’ among rebels. It would only be a matter of time before any weapons that are provided to the few secular groups remaining found their way into the hands of the Jihadi fighters.

‘Mad Max’ Boot also writes that:

The intervention of Hezbollah into the conflict has only added more compelling reasons for action. As Lee Smith has noted in the ‘Weekly Standard’, the U.S. has a lot of scores to settle with Hezbollah stretching all the way back to its murderous bombings of our embassy and Marine barracks in Lebanon in the 1980s. This is a perfect opportunity to settle accounts and in the process weaken this Iranian proxy movement. Syrian rebels are fighting hard against Hezbollah and inflicted serious losses on Hezbollah fighters in Quasayr. They will inflict more losses in the future if only we would provide them the means to do so.

Never mind the ‘US having scores to settle with Hezbollah’; the reason ‘Mad Max’ makes no bones about his desire to have a full-on fight with Hezbollah is because any such fight will likely draw in Israel – but then, that’s exactly what the neocons and their Zionist allies want; a full-blown war with Hezbollah that will provide the Israelis with an opportunity to invade and occupy south Lebanon to attempt to destroy Hezbollah once and for all. But, again, the problem here is that it is the ‘al-Nusrah Front’ that are doing most of the fighting against Hezbollah who are supporting the Syrian government in that theatre of the war close to Lebanon.

If ‘Mad Max’ thinks the US is going to help out the ‘al-Nusrah Front’ just to get at Hezbollah then ‘Mad Max’ is truly delusional as well as confused. The ‘al-Nusrah Front’ despises the Israelis far more than they do Hezbollah. If Israel enjoins the war by attacking either Hezbollah or al-Assad then it is highly probable that such a move could see the protagonists in Syria and Lebanon unite to fight their arch-enemy Israel. For what other reason does ‘Mad Max’ think the US and Israel have kept out of the war of late?    

Monday, June 10, 2013


The war in Syria that threatens to engulf the region has clearly become a religious war pitting Sunni Muslims against Shia Muslims. Having began as a secular rebellion, it has now become an almost exclusively sectarian war and, like most religious wars, has become extremely bloody and polarising with some Syrian Shia Muslims that had defected to the rebel cause in the early days now asking to be taken back into the government’s ranks.

But the question is; how did it arrive at this horrifying mess – especially considering that the war has been going on now for more than two years under the eyes of a watching world? Did it simply evolve into a religious war where the two sides became hooked on bathing in each others blood, or are there some other more manipulating influences behind the scenes guiding events?

The right-wing in the West are quietly (and not so quietly) rubbing their hands together as they sit back and watch the two great branches of Islam slaughter each other. Israel’s role in stirring the pot of extreme hatreds hasn’t gone unnoticed. They bombed Syria insisting that their sole aim was to prevent arms finding their way to Hezbollah yet it would seem that it would be more in Israel’s interests to actually support al-Assad and his allies rather than allow Israel’s arch enemy, al-Qaeda, to ultimately win the day in Syria and become even more of a threat to Israel than al-Assad or Hezbollah.

Hezbollah is an organisation that exists to defend against Israel’s expansionist ambitions of acquiring territory in south Lebanon up to the Litani River. On several occasions in the past Israel has attempted to invade and occupy this area under various pretexts. Israel usually claims that any hostilities between the two are usually started by Hezbollah. The reality, however, is quite different. In 2006, for example, Israel claimed that the war started because Hezbollah had captured and killed several Israel soldiers close to the border with Lebanon. What Israel failed to mention was that the capturing of the soldiers was in retaliation to Israel’s increasingly frequent low level flights over Lebanon; short of actually dropping bombs, one can’t imagine an act more provoking than any enemy aircraft flying at low level over ones cities in mock attack. Imagine the Israeli reaction if the roles were reversed and Lebanese attack aircraft flew supersonic low level sorties over Tel Aviv.

Syria and Israel have been relatively quiet for years since the illegal take-over of the Golan Heights during Israel’s war for territorial gain in 1967. Israel, as a direct result of its stance against al-Assad in the current war, can now be assured of conflict over the Golan Heights regardless of who gets the upper hand in Syria.

So, if Israel is prepared to risk years of relative calm on the Golan Heights and allow a Sunni-backed Islamist government to exist in Syria, one needs to ask; what’s in it for Israel?

The war in Syria is becoming increasingly ferocious as everyday passes and, as it does, both sides will become even more polarised which runs the risk of becoming an all-out regional religious war spilling into Lebanon, as it already has; into Jordan and also into Iraq where sectarian violence has long been a part of Iraqi life anyway but now increasingly so. But for Israel and the West all this is good news. It means that while the Muslims are fighting amongst themselves then they are not fighting Israel and the West. By fighting among themselves they are weakening each other and using resources that they may have otherwise used against Israel and the West. For every rocket that Hezbollah fires against Sunni rebels in Syria or Lebanon, it’s one less fired against Israel.

If and when the violence becomes so extremely horrific and eventually spills over the borders into the Golan Heights, the Israelis will then see this as an ideal opportunity to attack with so much force that, had they attacked without this war going on with all its attendant horrors, the international community might well have reacted against Israeli attacks. But now, with atrocities being committed by both sides in Syria, any attack by Israel against its enemies the instant either of the Syrian belligerents attack the Golan Heights or launch any weapon against Israel itself, will be seen as fully justified. And, of course, the US and their Western allies will be right behind them. It will be at this point that Israel and its Western allies will use all of its forces to ensure they prevail. Only the Russians and the Chinese will be in any position to prevent a global catastrophe.

The West’s unswerving loyalty to the Zionist cause has clearly allowed the situation to develop as it has. It has not evolved; it has been manipulated.  

Sunday, June 02, 2013


Going almost unnoticed in the Australian media was the news that all 105 members of Australia’s opposition parliamentarians became signatories to the ‘London Declaration on Combating Anti-Semitism’ during budget week last month.

The Declaration could possibly become the foundation for new laws that might restrict criticism of Israel in Australia as part of the Coalitions proposed revamping of Australia’s Racial Discrimination Act – the same act which, under Section 18C, Andrew Bolt was successfully prosecuted when he racially vilified a number of indigenous Australians.

The Declaration, based on the European Union’s EUMC ‘Working Definition of anti-Semitism’, consists of some 34 recommendations that it says governments should enact to combat anti-Semitism.

The problem with the Declaration is that embedded in it are recommendations that suggest that not only should vilification of Jews as a race, ‘individually’ or ‘collectively’, become illegal but criticism of Israel as a state, presumably because it calls itself a ‘Jewish State’ and is, therefore, collectively Jewish, should also be considered as anti-Semitism and so should be made illegal. For example, the ‘Working Definition of anti-Semitism’ says that “claiming the State of Israel is a racist endeavour” is “denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination” and such criticism should be labelled as ‘anti-Semitic’. The Declaration ignores entirely the fact that Israel is not a ‘Jewish state’ as some 22% of its population are Arab.

The ‘Working Definition’ also suggests that “Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis” is also ‘anti-Semitic’. So too, according to the ‘Working Definition’, is “accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel… than to the interests of their own nations”.

While there are many appropriate recommendations that go toward combating anti-Semitism within the documents, those mentioned above, and others, are wholly inappropriate and should not be included in either the ‘Declaration’ or ‘Working Definitions’ and completely excluded from any future legislation in Australia or anywhere else on the planet.