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.

Tuesday, January 30, 2007


The right-wing Zionists of Israel and their neoconservative allies within the US administration, together with their colleagues in the media and right-wing think-tank organisations, have already managed to get the US and their allies to invade and occupy Iraq thus ridding Israel of one of its enemies. Now those same people are trying the same kind of lies they told about Saddam Hussein in an effort to get the world to support an attack against the Islamic state of Iran.

The first time around with Iraq they had little trouble convincing many of the governments of the world that Saddam Hussein was a threat to them and must therefore be gotton rid off. They took advantage of the sympathy gained from the events of 11 September 2001, milking it for all it was worth, including claiming that Saddam Hussein had connections with al Qaeda who the US alleged were responsible for 9/11, in order to get the UN to endorse an attack against Iraq. Even then most of the peoples of the world could not be so easily fooled and knew that the US and its allies had ulterior motives. They argued that, despite being a disgusting dictator, Hussein was not a threat to the world as we were being told and that ousting him would end up being more trouble for the Middle East than it was worth. In the end, the US and their so-called ‘Coalition of the Willing’ were unable to get the support they wanted from the UN and decided to attack Iraq without a mandate.

Their adventure quickly began to fall apart soon after their invasion and they began losing what little support they had mustered when it became apparent that there were no WMDs to be found. The allied governments began to grasp at straws when they discovered some trucks, which they claimed were mobile chemical or biological weapons factories. They turned out to be nothing more than mobile hydrogen generators used for weather and artillery ranging balloons. Their credibility foundered further when they made the mistake of continuing to claim they were mobile chemical or biological weapons factories despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Then some of the other lies that were told also began to fall apart. The claims about Saddam seeking uranium from Niger were found to be false. Tony Blair’s famous ‘dossier’ turned out to be nothing more than lies plagiarised from a student’s assignment. And, on top of all that, the war quickly began to look like it wasn’t going to be the ‘cakewalk’ that neocon Ken Adelman, a close friend and government colleague of Donald Rumsfeld, said it was going to be.[1] Instead of welcoming the American troops and their allies as ‘liberators’ as Dick Cheney had boasted,[2] the Iraqi people began to fight back. It soon became obvious to the Iraqis why the Americans had invaded and they quickly realised that the combination of their oil resources were one attraction and that regional influence and hegemony was another, all of which in turn served the purposes of Israel who had been plagued by Saddam Hussein’s financial support of the Palestinians in their fight to free themselves.

Not only did the Iraqis begin to fight back but they also began to take advantage of the lawlessness that ensued in order to fight each other, not just in order to jockey for political power within the new set of circumstances but also to extract revenge for the years that one ethnic group had had domination over another reducing Iraq into chaos.

During the almost four years that have passed since the invasion of Iraq, Israel and the US have steadily increased their rhetoric against Iran. Ever since the overthrow of the US-backed Shah by the Iranian Islamic militants, successive Israeli and US administrations have to varying degrees been at loggerheads with successive Iranian leaders with a slight thaw in relations only when the more moderate Ayatollah Ali Khamenei came to power after the death of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. The thaw was short-lived and by the end of the first Gulf War tensions again began to mount as the US and Israel accused Iran of supporting ‘terrorism’ and embarking on a nuclear program designed to build nuclear weapons.

Israel’s main grievance about Iran was its support of Hizbollah, a mainly Shia militant group that began to flourish in the late 80s as a result of the civil war in Lebanon and the Israeli occupation of southern Lebanon that resulted from that civil war.

The civil war in Lebanon also saw the emergence of complex alliances among the various Muslim groupings, particularly between many of the Palestinian refugees that now lived in southern Lebanon who had suffered terribly at the hands of both the Israelis and the Christian Phalange militias that were allied with the Israelis. This has resulted in a somewhat confusing and often seemingly contradictory relationship between various factions, both religious and secular, throughout the Middle East and beyond. The bottom line for the Israelis, however, and their pro-Zionist neoconservative allies in the US, is that Iran, ever since the overthrow of the Shah, has been a thorn in the side of Israeli ambitions to create a Greater Israel that is inclusive of southern Lebanon up to the Litani River, the Golan Heights, the Gaza and the West Bank.

For the Israelis the neutralising of Iran is more important than the problem Israel has with Syria. Syria, being on Israel’s doorstep, can be taken care of at anytime by the Israelis and the neutralising of Iran will also enhance Israel’s ability to neutralise Syria later.

There are many reasons why Israel sees Iran as the priority for neutralising before going for Syria. The main reason is that Iran is by far the more dominant of the two. Militarily Israel would be able to overwhelm Syria in a full scale attack with relative ease – but only if Iran is out of the picture. Iran and Syria have a current mutual assistance treaty which means that Iran would come to Syria’s assistance if Israel attacked Syria.[3] Since Iran has missiles that are able to reach Israel it would be prudent of Israel to first ensure that Iran was neutralised before taking on Syria. The hope is, of course, that in the event of Iran being neutralised, Syria would then capitulate to Israel’s demands leaving Israel free to confront, yet again, Hizbollah. The Israeli hope is that, with a defeated Hizbollah, there will follow a collapse of Palestinian resistance in the Gaza and the West Bank.

That’s the theory. The problem for Israel is; how to neutralise Iran.

This is where we came in. The Israelis have already managed to get the West to take care of Iraq for them by using lies and deceit. Since it worked once, the Israelis and their neoconservative allies reason, then it should work again if the lies can be even bigger and more convincing. With the support of a compliant mainstream media they are certainly, it seems, going to give it a try.

The role of fear-mongering plays an important part in right-wing Zionist propaganda and what better fear-mongering can there be for the right-wing propagandists to evoke the threat of a second Holocaust by playing on President Ahmadinejad’s re-contextualised and misinterpreted words regarding ‘wiping the Zionist entity’ from the map. This was seized upon by the propagandists who, coupling it with the lie about Irans nuclear ambitions, has played the deceitful scenario for all its worth to the UN and the people of America and Israel and the peoples of the world. However, the IAEA, the authority that the Israelis and the US are relying on to support their claims about Iran’s nuclear ambitions, have found no evidence whatsoever to suggest that Iran is doing anything more than enriching uranium for use in energy generation. Nonetheless, the US and Israel have stirred up big enough waves to at least get the international community, the UN, to invoke some sanctions against Iran, none of which are actually likely to hurt Iran directly with most of them being put in place just to placate the US and Israel to make them feel as though the UN is actually doing something. Naturally, the US and Israel would have preferred sanctions that were a lot stiffer and offered military options but there was never anyway that that was going to happen while the Russians and the Chinese have veto power.

President Bush is now all but isolated politically in terms of being able to launch a pre-emptive attack on Iran. He certainly would not be able to get congressional approval to launch a pre-emptive attack on Iran. As a consequence Bush and his administration are trying really hard to implicate Iran with the insurgency in Iraq as this, arguably, would then, if he could provide direct evidence of such Iranian interference in Iraq, be the legitimate casus belli that would allow Bush to launch an attack directly on Iran as he already has authority as commander-in-chief to wage war in Iraq and an attack on Iran in circumstances where Iran was interfering in Iraq would, Bush’s team argues, be legal.

This is the stage that the Middle East is at now. All the US needs is some provocation from Iran, either by Iran making a pre-emptive strike (real or imaginary) against some American target, perhaps somewhere in the Straight of Hormuz where US carrier battle fleets are gathering, or ‘provably’ involving itself in the Iraq conflict against the interests of the US. Of course, the US is also just as likely to point the finger of blame to Iran for just about any major incident that occurs in Iraq regardless of whether or not Iran actually did have anything to do with it.

Since the US are ramping up the rhetoric to make this scenario look more likely, it would seem that the other possible scenario, that of Israel making a pre-emptive strike off its own bat, is on the back-burner for the moment. Even that scenario, however, would still require US cooperation; the logistics of overfly routes, fuelling, target acquisition, etc., would be impossible without US help and, besides, the Israelis wouldn’t dream of embarking on such an operation without being assured of US help in the event of an Iranian retaliatory strike.

The reality is that what this ‘crisis’ is really all about is not Iran seeking nuclear weapons, or President Ahmadinejad wanting to destroy Israel, or stopping Iran supporting ‘terrorists’, but about Israel being rid of its enemies so that it can move ahead with its long held dream of a Greater Israel that encompasses lands which currently do not belong to them and which are protected by the presence of Islamic nations hostile to Israeli interests and aspirations. Slowly the world is waking up to this reality and the lies and deceit are becoming exposed.

Unfortunately, we are living in a world where our leaders who are in league with each other in Israel’s quest for a Greater Israel aren’t listening to their peoples anymore; they are just as likely to go ahead with their plans for US and Israeli domination of the Middle East regardless of what he rest of the world has to say about it – just as they ignored the masses of a protesting world prior to invading Iraq.

[1] Ken Adelman, ‘Cakewalk In Iraq’, Washington Post, 13 February 2003. Available online: Accessed 28 December 2006.
[2] Dana Milbank, ‘Upbeat Tone Ended With War’, Washington Post, 29 March 2003. Available online: Accessed 30 January 2007.
[3] Farhad Pouladi, ‘Iran, Syria Sign Defence Agreement’,, 15 June 2006. Available online: Accessed 30 January 2007.

Sunday, January 28, 2007


In Bob Woodward’s latest book, State of Denial, there is an easily overlooked passage that gives more than just a subtle hint about what Bush’s intentions are for Iran. Rather than re-relate the story as Bob Woodward tells it, which would then tend to make the story third hand, I’ll reproduce the passage here which the reader can then verify via reference to the book itself.

The story relates to an interview that Jay Garner, the short-lived director of reconstruction and humanitarian assistance in Iraq, had with Bush just after he had been replaced by Paul Bremer. Woodward writes:

“Mr. President, the one thing I’ll tell you, I’ve had three weeks to work with Ambassador Bremer and he’s one of the hardest working men I’ve ever seen. He’s a very bright guy. He’s articulate and he’ll get the job done. You made a good choice.”
“I didn’t choose him,” Bush said. “Rumsfeld chose him just like he chose you.”
Garner looked at Rumsfeld. The secretary of defence had told him explicitly in late April [2003] that Bush had selected Bremer, and had added later that even the timing of Bremer’s arrival was not his call. But now Rumsfeld didn’t say a word.
As Garner got up to leave, Rice stopped him and extended her hand. “Jay, you’ve got to stay in touch with us,” she said.
“I’d like to,” Garner said, thinking to himself, ‘How the hell am I going to do that?’ After all, he only talked with Rumsfeld.
On the way out, Bush slapped Garner on the back. “Hey, Jay, you want to do Iran”?
“Sir, the boys and I talked about that and we want to hold out for Cuba. We think the rum and cigars are a little better… The women are prettier.”
Bush laughed. “You got it. You got Cuba.”[1]

The passage is telling for a number of reasons. The meeting between Garner and Bush was on 18 June 2003.[2] Already Bush was seriously thinking of Iran. And not just Iran, it seems. While it was Garner that mentioned Cuba, Bush was quick to take the opportunity of exercising the ‘Emperor’s prerogative’ implying that it was within his power to ‘give’ Garner Cuba.

The passage also highlights the deceitful and lying ways of Rumsfeld – it was indeed Rumsfeld who had selected Bremer to replace Garner contrary to what the secretary of defence had told him.

And, finally, there’s Condoleeza Rice’s rather patronising remark about Garner having to stay in touch with ‘us’.

All very revealing.

[1] Bob Woodward, State of Denial: Bush at War, Part III. (New York: Simon and Schuster, 2006.) p. 224.
[2] Woodward, State of Denial. p. 227.

Monday, January 22, 2007


The latest crackpot idea from right-wing Israeli Zionists hell-bent on a Greater Israel has been revealed in today’s Jerusalem Post.[1] The report said: “A new proposal designed to solve Israel's Arab demographic concerns suggests offering a million Palestinian residents of refugee camps in Judea and Samaria (aka the West Bank) incentives totalling as much as $50 billion to convince them to leave the area.”

The proposal comes from two of Israel’s foremost proponents for a Greater Israel, Rabbi Shlomo Aviner, head of the Ateret Kohanim Yeshiva in Jerusalem, and MK Benny Elon of the ultra right-wing National Union-National Religious Party.

No prizes for guessing where they expect the money to come from.

In a follow up to this story, another report, in Ha’aretz,[2] provides some perspective to Aviner and Elon’s ideas. During a tour last Saturday of the West Bank and around Jerusalem, the head of EU foreign policy, Javier Solana, said: “I had the opportunity to make a tour along the eastern part of Jerusalem and go to Abu Dis and its surroundings. You get really very shocked every time you go and you see the situation worse, the wall is more extended and settlements are more extended”.

The lunatic ideas of Aviner and Elon combined with the reality on the ground paint a grim picture for the future of the Palestinian peoples.


[1] Matthew Wagner, ‘New proposal: Transfer-for-cash plan’, Jerusalem Post, 21 January 2007. Available online: Accessed 22 January 2007.
[2] ‘Solana shocked at growth of Israeli settlements in West Bank’, Ha’aretz, 22 January 2007. Available online: Accessed 22 January 2007.

Thursday, January 18, 2007


David Gelernter of the American Enterprise Institute delusionally fancies himself as a speechwriter for Bush’s forthcoming State of the Union Address. In the latest edition of the neocon comic, The Weekly Standard,[1] he reproduces the speech he would like Bush to deliver to the people of America and the world.

Gelernter starts off by letting the people of America know that he would be pessimistic about the war in Iraq if “…the fight to topple the tyrant had dragged on for years”, ignoring entirely the fact that the tyrant has been toppled and the war has dragged on for years anyway. He goes on to say: “…the trial of Saddam Hussein was managed well under difficult circumstances. If (on the other hand) an outburst of violence had marred or derailed the election, if the trial or execution of Saddam had led to the large-scale violence so many people predicted, I might be pessimistic today.” Clearly the violence on the streets since Saddams execution which has resulted in the deaths of hundreds, including the deaths of some 70 students on Tuesday is not violence on a large enough scale for Gelernter to consider being ‘pessimistic’ about.

Further on in his speech to the people Gelernter would say:

“Of course some people argue that the war itself was a mistake; that all we can hope for today is to minimize our losses and get out fast. You know their reasons. Let me give you mine for believing that we were right to go into Iraq, righter than we ever knew. If we hadn't, Saddam would still be writing checks to subsidize Palestinian terror against Israel.” Instead we have the US writing checks to subsidize Israeli terror against the Palestinians and the Lebanese.

Gelernter goes on: “Israel would still be shadowed by Iraqi Scuds.” Instead we have Iran being shadowed by US warships with Tomahawk missiles.

Further on he’d say: “Today we might face two Irans, not one – two America-hating tyrant regimes with their weapons programs heated to max-boil.” Instead we have two Islam-hating tyrant regimes, the US and Israel, with their weapons ‘programs’ about to boil over.

Further on Gelernter, working himself up into a rhetorical frenzy and almost foaming at the mouth would blurt out the greatest furphy of them all: “Above all, how many 9/11s did we avert by showing that we would hit back and hit hard, and stand and fight for as long as it takes? Terrorists understand bullets, not baloney. U.N. resolutions don't impress them.” [The only people not impressed by UN resolutions are the Israelis] “Did we encourage 9/11 by standing down [Standing down the air force on 9/11 sure helped things along.] and backing off during much of the 1990s? We'll never know for sure." [Oh yes we will!] "But a great nation must act on its best judgment, not hang back and dither, when its safety and the world's are at stake.”

Pure garbage!

Apart from the obvious hypocrisy and the garbage, it very importantly demonstrates what the neoconservative’s real purpose was for instigating the war against Iraq – the protection of Israel and its interests.


[1] David Gelernter, ‘Please Say This… (Advice on the State of the Union. No charge.), Weekly Standard, 17 January 2007. Available online: Accessed 18 January 2007

Tuesday, January 16, 2007


It seems the right-wing at Australia’s Webdiary have done it again! This time Margo Kingston herself has forced one of Webdiary’s most articulate commentators, Roslyn Ross, from its pages through the most blatantly discriminatory of expediencies of limiting Ross’ – and only Ross’ – posts to 500 words. Ross, quite rightly, believes that this is intolerable censorship and has decided to withdraw from further debate there.

Roslyn Ross argued strongly against Israeli and US aggression in all of the countries that Israel and the US have attacked and occupied together with the Israelis on-going ethnic cleansing in the Gaza and West Bank. In the past Kingston has buckled to Australian pro-Zionist pressure, which has included death threats, (which her brother Hamish Alcorn has been caught lying about in the past) and it would seem that there is no reason to believe that Kingston has not done so once again given that the objections are said to be about “…relentless hostility towards Israel and Jews in particular, and her ceaseless hackneyed anti-American tirades.”[1]

The Webdiary site is now dominated by free-lance Israeli Loony Lobbyists like the Islamaphobes Chris Parsons, Geoff Pahoff and Mike Lyvers, the pseudo-academic deceiver and liar Will Howard, the ignoramus and blatantly fascist Jay White and a handful of other assorted right-wing lunatics who use the site to push their warmongering paranoid and Islamaphobic ideas on to an ever decreasing audience that have now begun to wake up to these people’s insanity.

Margo Kingston’s Webdiary was once a great place for lively debate about what goes on in this world – until it was taken over by the right-wing lunatics who support the madness that is now the Middle East. So much for Margo Kingston’s ‘liberalism’. She’s joined the ranks of John Howard’s ‘Support Bush and right-wing Zionist Israel at all costs’ brigade.

What a great shame. I wonder if Kingston will ever come clean and tell us the truth behind her censoring of comments on Webdiary.

[1] Roslyn Ross, ‘It is written… enough is enough’, Webdiary comment, 16 January 2007. Available online: Accessed 16 January 2007.

Monday, January 15, 2007


A quiet little story in the El Paso Times lets the cat out of the bag with regards to America’s future plans for the Middle East; apparently the 3-43 Air Defence Artillery out of Fort Bliss are soon to be on their way to the Middle East (actual destination unknown).[1]

One needs to ask why the US needs Patriot anti-missile missiles when the only other folk out there that have missiles are Israel and Iran. Now, we know Israel won’t be sending missiles against either themselves or the Americans so that leaves Iran. But why would Iran want to launch missiles against the Americans or their allies the Israelis?

Iran has said time and time again that it will retaliate if it is attacked and that its response would be immediate. Since Iran do have missiles capable of making the distance to both American strongholds in Iraq and to targets in Israel one wouldn’t be drawing a very long bow if one were to conclude that the Patriot missiles are being brought in to protect against an assault by Iranian missiles that were launched in retaliation against an attack on Iran, presumably against its nuclear facilities, by America and/or Israel.

Since we know that Israel really does have nuclear weapons, one can assume that, in circumstances where, say, Irans retaliatory attack killed large numbers of Israeli civilians in Tel Aviv or Haifa, that Israel may feel that it has no alternative but to use its nuclear ability on one of Irans smaller cities in order to break Irans continued resolve to fight Israel.

Does one really want to think about the consequences resulting from such escalation? It would be catastrophic for both the Middle East and the world.

It is time for the people of America and Israel to make a stand against the lunacy of their leaders. It is time for the world to make a stand against the lunacy of these leaders and their own leaders if they support this stupidity.

[1] Chris Roberts, ‘Bush’s troop surge includes 600 from Fort Bliss’, El Paso Times, 12 January 2007. Available online: Accessed 15 January 2007.

Saturday, January 13, 2007



The headline in today’s UK Telegraph reads: “Blair: Terrorists cannot be beaten without force”.[1]

Blair’s quite right – that’s why the Palestinians are fighting the Israeli terrorists that occupy the West Bank and the Gaza and why the Iraqis are fighting the US terrorists and their allies that occupy Iraq.


The Murdoch press just can’t help themselves. While it now seems that the rocket fired at the US Embassy was launched by a Greek left-wing group, The Australian, owned by the neoconservative Murdoch, just had to mention ‘Iran’ in the very first paragraph of their story despite the fact that Iran had absolutely nothing to do with it.

The headline read: “Rocket hits US Embassy”. The first paragraph of the story reads: “The US embassy in Athens was yesterday pierced by an anti-tank shell in what Greek police called an "act of terrorism", a day after America escalated its war in Iraq and warned Iran it would not "stand idly by" if Tehran continued to arm Iraq's insurgents.”[2]


[1] George Jones, ‘Blair: Terrorists cannot be beaten without force’, UK Telegraph, 12 January 2007. Available online:;jsessionid=OKYIKNHLST2H3QFIQMGCFF4AVCBQUIV0?xml=/news/2007/01/12/nblair112.xml Accessed 13 January 2007.
[2] ‘Rockets hit US Embassy’, The Australian, 14 January 2007. Available online:,20867,21051496-601,00.html Accessed 14 January 2007.

Friday, January 12, 2007



Here’s a classic example of Western arrogance and hypocrisy (two of the values that ‘they’ really do hate about ‘us’). This is the headline in an article in today’s Jerusalem Post. It reads: ‘Bush, in speech, warns Iran, Syria over aiding Iraq insurgents’.

Now, what if it read: ‘Ahmadinejad, in speech, warns US over aiding Israeli terrorists in Gaza, West Bank’.

Bush and his lunatic cohorts would be frothing at the mouth yet, for some reason, we’re expected to go along and accept the first headline.


What’s the likelihood of the Americans discovering that the rocket that was fired into the US Embassy compound was made in Iran and fired by ‘terrorists’ trained in or financed by Iran?

Tuesday, January 09, 2007


There has been a massive amount of energy expended by neoconservatives within the US, the world-wide Israeli Lobby, Israel itself and among neocon commentators embedded within the world’s mainstream media to try and con the world into believing that Iran is about to produce a nuclear bomb that it will use against Israel.

However, despite the expenditure of all this energy, there is still absolutely no evidence whatsoever that gets anywhere near substantiating the neocons claims. Even the IAEA can’t come up with any evidence.

Back in mid 2003 inspectors found a tiny trace of highly enriched bomb grade uranium in Iran.[1] The neocons jumped up and down saying they’d found the ‘smoking gun’ of Irans intentions of pursuing nuclear weapons.[2] It turns out that the tiny trace that was found was actually just a speck of contamination that came into the country on a piece of nuclear equipment that had been imported from Pakistan.[3] This didn’t make any difference to the neocons who continued to demonise the Iranians peaceful nuclear ambitions which is to enrich uranium to sufficient levels where it can be used for the production of electrical power. In November of 2003 the neocons continued their propaganda feast. The neocon senior editor of the neoconservative’s mainstay journal, Commentary, Gabriel Schoenfeld, wrote: “In late August and again in late September, IAEA inspections turned up traces of uranium on equipment in supposedly non-nuclear facilities, leading the agency to conclude that an illicit enrichment program was under way. Commented ElBaradei: "This worries us greatly."”[4] The neocons and the right-wing Israeli Zionists have been feeding on this ever since – despite there being nothing to actually chew on.

Schoenfeld’s piece, entitled ‘The Terror Ahead’, is also interesting for some of its other remarks; remarks that emphasise the neocons penchant for arrogance and hypocrisy. At one point Schoenfeld writes: “Among the countries trading with North Korea is Iran, a country likewise governed by violent fanatics, of the Islamic rather than the Marxist-Leninist stripe.”[5] Schoenfeld ignores entirely that other nation in the Middle East governed by violent fanatics of the right-wing Zionist stripe rather than the Islamic or Marxist-Leninist stripe; Israel, is a nation that indeed does have nuclear weapons and now, apparently, seems ready to use them.

So what is it about Iran that the Israelis hate so much that they are prepared to risk a Middle East nuclear holocaust in order to ensure regime change there? Israel knows as well as the rest of the world that, despite the outrageous lies and propaganda designed purely and solely for the consumption of the dumb and gullible in the West, that Iran has no nuclear weapons; so why Iran? Why not Pakistan? Now there’s an Islamic nation that does have nuclear weapons yet Israel seems undisturbed by this.

At the moment Pakistan is not a threat to Israel – at least not while Musharraf is still in charge. But the reason Iran is perceived by Israel as a threat is, not because of any non-existent nuclear ambitions, but because of Iran’s support of those that resist Israel’s long-term Greater Israel ambitions in the Gaza, the West Bank, southern Lebanon and its continued occupation of the Golan Heights; that is to say Irans support of Hamas and Hizbollah. Naturally, Israel can’t just come right out and say ‘Iran under its present leadership is thwarting our expansionist ambitions so therefore we want regime change’, so instead it has come up with the same sort of lies and propaganda that they used to get the US, UK, Australia and a few other sucked in nations to get rid of that other monkey on the back of Israel’s regional ambitions, Iraq and its leader Saddam Hussein who was supporting the Palestinians in their resistance to Israeli aggression. It worked then but one wonders what makes the Israelis think that the world is going to get sucked in again!

[1] Felicity Barringer, ‘Traces of Enriched Uranium Are Reportedly Found in Iran’, The New York Times, 27 August 2003. Available online (subscription required): Accessed 9 January 2007.
[2] Jon Levin, ‘Convenient Concession’, National Review Online, 4 November 2003. Available online: Accessed January 2007.
[3] Dafna Linza, ‘No Proof Found of Iran Arms Program’, Washington Post, 23 August 2005. Available online: Accessed 9 January 2007.
[4] Gabriel Schoenfeld, ‘The Terror Ahead’, Commentary, November 2003, Vol. 116, No. 4, p. 21.
[5] Schoenfeld, The Terror Ahead’. p. 21.

Monday, January 08, 2007


The Middle East, the US and possibly the world are heading for disaster in 2007 if the Neocon-dominated Bush administration and Israeli government have their way.

Bush, against the good sense of just about everyone,[1] is likely to accept the advice handed to him by the warmongering neocon lunatics at the American Enterprise Institute who have suggested that what has become known as a ‘surge’ force be sent to Iraq to try and quash the insurgent and sectarian violence once and for all.[2]

Aligned with the prospect of the potential for disaster which such a surge is likely to result in is Israel’s increasingly noisy chatter about taking on Irans so-called nuclear ambitions[3] and the even bigger prospect of disaster here as the consequences of such an attack by Israel against Iran become realised.

If Bush goes ahead with the planned surge with some 20,000 or more US troops, together with a matching number of Iraqi troops, being poured into Baghdad and then to al-Anbar province the result will be massive bloodbath that could make what happened in Fallujah look like a tea party. The result could well be all out civil war in which tens of thousands could die including huge civilian and militia losses as well as many American soldiers. There could even be the possibility of a temporary alliance between Shia and Sunni militia to fight what they see as being a US and Iraqi puppet army 'surge' happening against them. Either way, thousands are likely to lose their lives.

In the other disaster scenario where Israel attacks Irans nuclear facilities – especially if this is done using tactical nuclear weapons – the consequences will also be catastrophic. The entire region could be engulfed in an unimaginable conflict which could well unite the Arab world against the West.

The two happening at the same time could spark a disaster for the world that would be too ghastly to even contemplate.

And all because the neoconservatives that influence the Bush administration on behalf of the right-wing Zionist Israeli government fantasise about a Greater Israel dominating the Middle East.

It’s time the peoples of the world – including the peoples of Israel – stood up and demand an end to this utter lunacy.

[1] Jim Lobe, ‘Bush’s Surge Strategy Faces Heavy Opposition’,, 6 January 2007. Available online: Accessed 8 January 2007.
[2] Frederick W. Kagan, ‘Choosing Victory: A plan for success in Iraq’, AEI Publication, 14 December 2006. Available online: Accessed 18 December 2006.
[3] Reuters, ‘Israel has plans for nuclear strike on Iran: paper’, via, 6 January 2007. Available online: Accessed 8 January 2007.

Sunday, January 07, 2007


There seems to be an awful amount of garbage being spouted over at popular Australian current affairs blog, Webdiary, by members of the warmongering self-appointed Australian Branch of the Israeli Loony Lobby that tend to use the blog to spew their warmongering Israeli Lobby myths, in this case about Iran’s non-existent nuclear arms program. The perpetual liar, Australia-American neocon Will Howard, says: “…there is evidence that the belligerent rhetoric from Iran more [sic] be more than just words (see the various IAEA reports over the past two years). It's not conclusive evidence, thus the dilemma for Israel and the West in general.”[1]

The belligerent rhetoric Will Howard is referring to is Ahmadinejad’s comments about ‘wiping’ the right-wing Zionist government ‘off the map’. Will Howard refers to ‘evidence’, meaning Iran’s alleged pursuit of nuclear weapons, but then says it’s ‘not conclusive evidence’. This is an oxy-moron! One either has evidence or one doesn’t. Non-conclusive evidence is no evidence at all. The IAEA has no evidence whatsoever – and has said so – that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons.[2]

Then there is this foaming-at-the-mouth rant from the racist Islamaphobe Geoff Pahoff:

“Do you seriously think this is about hurtful language and naughty words? Do you sincerely believe there is nothing more to this than belligerent rhetoric? Let me be as clear as I can about this. Read my lips. Please try to understand what I am about to say, for everybody's sake. It is important. Very important. Too important to run the risk of confused or mixed messages. Iran will never have a nuclear weapon capability. Never. This is something that will not happen. Surely you must understand this fact, even if the Iranians are too deluded or stupid to understand it. No Iranian nukes. Never. What they think is ultimately irrelevant. Get it? Would you like me to repeat that?”[3]

First off, Iran will never have nukes – not because Pahoff and his right-wing Zionofascist mates say so but because the Iranians themselves aren’t pursuing them and have said so time and time again. Pahoff’s remarks however also expose some other characteristics of Pahoff and Will Howard’s particular brand of right-wing Zionofascism; hypocrisy and arrogance. It’s OK apparently for Israel to have nuclear weapons as long as no one else in the region has.

These two free-lancing warmongering lunatics, together with a few others at Webdiary, have seized on the remarks of one man who, incidentally, they neglect to mention does not have the final say in what goes on in Iran, especially in matters that relate to taking the country to war and nuking other nations, and have used those remarks, as have the Israeli government and the Likudnik-supporting American neoconservatives, to ferment hatred in the Western world against the Iranians in order to get the US to attack Iran or, alternatively, to get the US to support an Israeli attack on Iran. The Israeli Loony Lobby tried this same stunt with Iraq and managed to get the US to attack Iraq; now they’re trying it on again using Ahmadinejad’s misconstrued and re-contextualised remarks as an excuse to attack Iran. The reality is that Ahmadinejad’s remarks are not the reason for Israel’s hatred because the right-wing Zionist Israelis and their neocon comrades in the US have been banging on about Iran ever since the fascist Shah was kicked out by the Mullahs and long before Ahmadinejad appeared on the scene. The real reason for their hatred of Iran is their hatred and fear of Islam and Islamic dominated governments and, more precisely, their fear of an Islamic Iran’s interference of Israel’s regional aspirations which include the colonisation of the Gaza, the West Bank and even, hopefully, southern Lebanon up to the Litani River – in other words, the Zionist dream of the creation of a Greater Israel.

[1] Will Howard, ‘Sticks and Stones’, Webdiary comment, 7 January 2007. Available online:
[2] ‘Iran: IAEA Report Shows No Nuclear Activity in Iran’, Associated Press report via, 28 February 2006. Available online:,2933,186249,00.html While this is a February 2006 news item, the story hasn’t changed despite the rhetoric.
[3] Geoff Pahoff, ‘No Fascist Nukes. Never. Nothing to Discuss’, Webdiary comment, 7 January 2007. Available online:

Thursday, January 04, 2007


Now that the tide of Australian public opinion is beginning to flow David Hicks’s way as the call for his release, or at least an early hearing, gets louder and louder, so the Howard government has begun to show its true hypocritical colours by jumping on the bandwagon of that public opinion and, while not exactly calling for his immediate release, are calling on the US to expedite his case as quickly as possible.

Suddenly we are beginning to hear rhetoric like: “My personal view is that justice should be swift for anybody so their guilt or innocence can be determined as quickly as possible”,[1] from the Australian Federal Police Commissioner Mick Keelty. Why didn’t Keelty come out with this four years ago?

And this outright lie from Australian Attorney-General Phillip Ruddock, who has procrastinated for years about Hicks's incarceration, who recently told Astralians: “It's important to understand that the Government's position has always been, in relation to these matters, to have Hicks's situation resolved as quickly as possible”.[2]

Ruddock’s sudden change of heart came shortly after the new Australian director of military prosecutions, Brigadier Lynette McDade, had expressed her serious concerns about the length of time Hicks had spent in prison without any charge being brought against him. She told the Australia’s ABC that she is ‘appalled at the legal treatment of Guantanamo Bay detainee David Hicks’.[3]

The Australian government is guilty of the most appalling hypocrisy demonstrating how once again, when it comes to public opinion flowing against the government it suddenly sees the light and begins, albeit very begrudgingly, to bend to the public will.

Yet, after all these years of doing nothing, if David Hicks is indeed released in the near future then one can rest assured that it will be Howard and his government taking ‘credit’ for his release.

[1] ‘Keelty calls for swift Hicks trial’, Sydney Morning Herald, 4 January 2007.Available online:
[2] ‘Govt frustrated over length of Hicks detainment’, ABC Online, 2 January 2007. Available online:
[3] ‘McDade condemns Hicks’s legal treatment’, ABC Online, 2 January 2007. Available online:


Dylan Kissane, an Australian neocon living in France recently wrote: “International solutions to national problems are not, for me, an effective way to deal with such crimes.”[1] (Kissane was referring to the crimes that Saddam Hussein had recently been executed.)

I challenged this piece of gross hypocrisy by pointing out to him that, contrary to this assertion, he had indeed supported the invasion of Iraq as part of an international solution to the national problem of Saddam's crimes.

His response was typical of neocons caught out spouting hypocrisy – lie your way out of it. He said: “He [Saddam] was (and Iraq under his leadership was) an international threat. As such, it is not hypocritical to support an international solution to an international problem.”

I pointed out that this was a lie, stating what is by now the obvious string of lies that had been used by the neocons as an excuse to attack Iraq including there having been no WMDs and Saddam having had nothing to do with al Qaeda or the events of 911.

Kissane’s response, compounding his already gross hypocrisy, was this:

“There are lots of things that Saddam had nothing to do with and I believe - as you do - that 9/11 and al Qaeda are some of them. He was, however, involved in supporting the families of homicidal terrorists in Palestine and had used WMD in the past. He also had a history of aggression with attacks on Iran, Kuwait and Israel all occurring while he was in charge.”

Kissane ignores entirely the fact that the only ‘homicidal terrorists’ in Palestine are the ones dressed in Israeli uniforms murdering innocent Palestinians – these are the Israeli soldiers of the same army that really does have secret WMDs including nuclear weapons. Indeed, Saddam Hussein, whose crimes I must state, I do not condone, far from supporting the families of the ‘homicidal terrorists’, was supporting the families of those Palestinians who were fighting back against those ‘homicidal terrorists’.

Compounding his hypocrisy even more, Kissane also neglects to mention the many, many aggressive wars waged by the US and Israel over the years, particularly those against Iraq itself and Afghanistan by the Americans, and Lebanon and the Gaza by Israel.

More hypocrisy and more lies from Kissane; all typical hallmarks of neocons and right-wing Israeli Zionists around the world.

[1] Dylan Kissane, comment at, 3 January 2007. Available online:

Tuesday, January 02, 2007


Had the Bush administration handed over Saddam Hussein to the International Criminal Court to be dealt with, or whatever other International court would have had such appropriate jurisdiction in such matters, Saddam would have spent the rest of his life in prison for not only crimes against humanity but also for a whole range of other crimes including various war crimes that he undoubtedly would have been found guilty of.

However, in allowing this to have happened Bush would have opened if not himself then most certainly other officials of both this and previous administrations to having been complicit to some extent or another in many of Saddams other crimes. Indeed, the crime that Saddam was actually tried and executed for was deliberately and carefully chosen because it was one of the very, very few of Saddams crimes that the US was not actually complicit or implicated in thus ensuring that their other secrets are now safe.

With Saddams death comes a collective sigh of relief from those around Bush that may have been implicated by a full international trial of Saddam where all of his skeletons would have fallen out of the closet exposing the whole rotten mess that is US complicity in Middle East ratbaggery. But that collective sigh of relief could still turn into a gasp of horror as Bush and his cronies realise that, by setting the precedent of allowing Saddam to be executed in a country that does have the death penalty for such crimes, that they too could well find themselves facing the people of their own nation to answer similar crimes.

There would be a certain irony in the fact that the very laws the present US criminals created to ‘protect’ American citizens from the International Criminal Court, which doesn’t have a death penalty, meant that they had to face those charges in the US which does have a death penalty.