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.

Saturday, December 29, 2007


By making an enemy of the Islamic world the West has created a rod for its own back. Rather than making the world a safer place, the West has put the world at even greater risk than ever it was during the Cold War.

The death of Benazir Bhutto has only served to increase that risk. As I mentioned in my post yesterday, the chances of this assassination having been carried out by ‘al Qaeda’ or some other ‘terrorist’ organisations are much less than the chances of it having been carried out under the auspices of Musharraf’s Western supporters, the US and the Israelis, who have a vested interest in ensuring that Pakistan’s nuclear weapons stay firmly under the control of a leader they know and trust.

Benazir Bhutto, while an extremely popular and pro-western Pakistani political leader, has a history of being weak inasmuch that she never seemed to be able to hang to power for very long. She seemed to always be being ousted from power or involved in some corruption scandal or being sent off into exile – yet again. This is not the sort of leader that the US and Israel could afford to have as the leader of Pakistan even under some power-sharing arrangement. The risk of having such power usurped from her by Islamic fundamentalist politicians and activists was just too much for the US and the Israelis to accept.

If, indeed, it were the Western powers that were behind her death, a proposition that, despite the Western propaganda and rhetoric to the contrary, seems most likely, then the upshot is likely to be success for them. Musharraf is likely to weather the storm and will do it with US help even if it means the US sending troops to Pakistan to help Musharraf maintain control. It’s telling that George Bush has called for the Pakistani elections to go ahead but carefully neglected to mention that it should stick to the 8 January 2008 timetable. The omission buys both himself and, more importantly, Musharraf, more time to reconsolidate their positions.

The turmoil following Benazir Bhutto’s death was a risk, it seems, they were willing to take. For the US and Israel the looming Pakistani election was far more of a risk than the aftermath of murdering a popular but weak political leader who could very easily have been toppled by other far more anti-US and Israeli elements within Pakistan who would then have control of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons.

The mainstream media has talked up the risk of civil war in Pakistan but the reality is this; Pakistan is a nation with a massive population of some 165 million people, the vast majority of whom, while upset at what has happened, are far more concerned with just day to day survival in relatively peaceful times than trying to do the same thing while fighting each other in a civil war. There may well be considerable violence in the aftermath of her death but there is unlikely to be any civil war.

Benazir Bhutto’s death is likely to have the desired outcome for the US and Israel. Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal will remain in the hands of the leader who the US and Israel have sponsored ever since 9/11. The risk of having a weak leader voted into power in a popular election has been averted. Having a strong man who would in all likelihood concede to allowing US troops on Pakistani dirt is just what the US and Israelis need.

I doubt there will be too many tearful eyes in the White House, the Knesset or the offices of the AEI over Benazir Bhutto’s death.

Friday, December 28, 2007


Whenever turmoil is created in our world, such as assassination and bombing, and the neocons rush to point the finger of blame at ‘al Qaeda’ or some other associated ‘terror’ organisation, one can be reasonably sure that what the world has witnessed is yet another false flag operation perpetrated by a group or groups that have some ulterior, political, or even pecuniary motive or motives for creating such turmoil. And such is the case with the assassination yesterday of Pakistani politician Benazir Bhutto.

Pakistani politics has always been volatile and every election is guaranteed to bring about the deaths of scores of people from political violence during election campaigns. Political assassinations also have always been a part of political life, not just in Pakistan but across the entire sub-continent, ever since the end of British rule. In the past, such political violence has always been home-grown and committed by domestic political players for purely domestic political reasons. However, the death of Benazir Bhutto has repercussions and consequences that extend far beyond Pakistani domestic politics and it is for this reason that one should be sceptical about who the finger of blame is being pointed at. More importantly, one should also look at the political gain that those who are doing the finger pointing could expect to receive as a result of making such accusations.

When blame is apportioned in the mainstream western media there is a tendency for it to stick. For many, that same mainstream western media is all they have to rely on to provide them with their information about events in the world, so when journalists and commentators write their ‘news’ and vent their opinions in the mainstream media it becomes difficult to refute or argue with and any attempts by those that have other ideas about what may really have happened are usually dismissed as conspiracy theorists. In order to ensure that the right ‘message’ gets across, therefore, it is imperative that when events – like the assassination of Benazir Bhutto – happens that the finger of blame gets pointed as quickly as possible and that such blame is made well-known via as much of the mainstream media as possible before any other options could be placed into the collective world mind.

The question then is; who indeed did murder Benazir Bhutto? In the absence of any direct evidence from any quarter, one can only start by asking who had the most to gain by her murder. According to President Bush the “cowardly” attack was carried out by “…by murderous extremists who are trying to undermine Pakistan’s democracy”. The first thing one feels compelled to ask is; what democracy? Pakistan is governed by a dictatorship headed by President Musharraf who came to power via a coup and has been supported by the US ever since 9/11. Elections that bore some semblance to ‘democracy’ and were likely to see the demise Musharraf as President are scheduled for 8 January 2008. These are now in doubt, so Musharraf, it would seem, would have much to gain from Benazir Bhutto’s murder. But what would ‘al Qaeda’ have to gain from her death? To be sure, to most fighters who are defending fundamentalist Islam from the onslaught of the West, she was just another western-inspired and educated politician intent on power in Pakistan but she was no more a threat to ‘al Qaeda’ than any other politician in Pakistan looking for power. They certainly would have no reason to kill her – at least not just yet – though no doubt they would be quite happy about the fact that she is gone.

For the US and her allies, particularly Israel, it is essential that Musharraf retains power. Both the US and Israel are very sensitive to the fact that Pakistan does have nuclear arms and that it is a predominately Muslim nation and that there is a large element of Islamic fundamentalists within the nations political ranks who it would be reasonable to assume have a very strong chance of gaining or seizing power in Pakistan and who would have the Taliban of Afghanistan and north-west Pakistan as an ally rather than as an enemy as they are now of Musharraf. Power passing to Benazir Bhutto via an election would have been much easier to seize by Islamic fundamentalists than from Musharraf if that is their intention – another reason why it would not be in their interests to assassinate her.

In early November of 2007, shortly after the earlier unsuccessful attempt on Benazir Bhutto’s life, British current affairs presenter David Frost interviewed her. She told Frost that she had suspicions that members of the Pakistan security services were behind the assassination attempt and had even written a letter to President Musharraf explaining her suspicions. In the same interview Benazir Bhutto also told Frost in a very matter of fact way that Osama bin Laden had been murdered by the same forces that wanted her dead; a man she named as none other than Omar Sheikh, the man convicted of the murder of American Daniel Pearl! It may well be that she was killed simply because she knew too much but much more likely because she was a threat to the current western international status quo who saw her gaining power as a massive risk that the US and their allies could not afford to take; though, most likely, she was killed for all of the these reasons.

Musharraf is the devil the US and the Israelis know. Benazir Bhutto has had power before and lost it; she was popular but she was not strong. Pakistani political power, as far as the US and the Israelis are concerned, should remain in the hands of the devil they have already paid for. The death of Benazir Bhutto may well ensure that power stays with Musharraf and pointing the finger of blame for her death at ‘al Qaeda’ merely strengthens the perception in the West for there to be a strong Pakistani leader and further demonises ‘al Qaeda’ generally into the bargain thus perpetuating the myth of its continued existence.


And, of course, right on cue, ‘al Qaeda’ has ‘confessed’.

Thursday, December 20, 2007


Ismail Haniya, the Hamas leader in the Gaza Strip, may well have upset Israeli plans for their take-over of the Gaza Strip by offering the Israelis a truce to the tit-for-tat violence that has dominated life in the Gaza ever since Hamas ousted the corrupt elements of Fatah and took control there. Haniya has offered to halt the launching of rockets into Israel from the Gaza if the Israelis stop killing Palestinians and open up the borders to allow the Gaza to begin functioning again.

The propaganda and rhetoric Israel has used to justify their targeted killings of Gazan fighters and the closing of the borders to trade and other essential goods has been that they wanted to pressure Hamas into halting the rocket attacks against Israel but now that Hamas have actually made an approach to negotiate a cease-fire, the Israelis, particularly the extreme right-wing Zionists, are pouring cold water onto the suggestion.

Clearly, the Israelis have other motives in wanting to continue their war against the Palestinian people, particularly Hamas in the Gaza and the Gazan people. Israeli hopes were that Hamas, instead of offering an olive branch to the Israelis in an effort to stop the Israelis killing Palestinian fighters and innocent civilians, would rather be so enraged at the Israeli killings that Hamas would actually increase their actions against the Israelis which, in turn, would provide the Israelis casus belli to invade the Gaza Strip. The plan essentially was not to force Hamas to capitulate but rather to provoke Hamas into actions that would provide justification for an Israeli invasion of the Gaza. Once having invaded the Gaza the Israelis would then have the opportunity of eliminating Hamas either by mass arrests or even killings in what they would tell the world were ‘combat clean-ups’ of Hamas resistance pockets.

The Hamas offer has come as shock to the Israelis. Israeli President Shimon Peres’ immediate response was that the Hamas offer was a “…pathetic and misleading attempt to divert international attention away from the crimes of Hamas and Islamic Jihad”. The statement is classic Zionist double-Chutzpah whereby the Israelis blame their enemies for forcing Israel into taking certain actions that are in themselves criminal in an effort to divert international attention away from the reality of Israeli crimes against the Palestinians.

Peres went on to say: “If Hamas and Islamic Jihad stop firing rockets at our women and children, Israel will immediately hold its fire, so there is no need for negotiations”. He couldn’t very well say anything different but was careful not to mention that the Hamas offer was conditional not just on a cease-fire against the Gazan people but also an opening up of the borders to allow essential goods to flow into the Gaza and some semblance of trade also to return. But most importantly Peres has cleverly avoided saying ‘no’ to negotiations but, at the same time, has made it clear that there will not be any.

For the Israelis, a cease-fire doesn’t solve their problem. Their problem is not really the rocket attacks against Israel, that’s just the propaganda and rhetoric; their problem is Hamas. A cease-fire doesn’t rid the Israelis of Hamas.

With much of Fatah having now capitulated to Israeli demands, Hamas is now the only stumbling block within the Palestinian territories to the long term goal of Israeli annexation of what is left of Palestine, including the West Bank and the Gaza, in order to create a Greater Israel, still the dream of right-wing Israeli Zionists. But while Hamas exists there will never be a Greater Israel which is why it is essential for the right-wing Israeli Zionists to be at war with Hamas; because that is the only way it can be destroyed.

The Israelis will not be taking up Hamas’ offer of a cease-fire – it’s not part of their game plan.

Tuesday, December 18, 2007


The delivery of nuclear fuel to Iran from Russia is a turning point in the saga of Iran’s relations with the US and Israel over Iran’s so-called nuclear weapons program but is unlikely to change Israel's ultimate goal of regime change in Iran.

While it had always been part of the plan for Russia to supply fuel to the Bushehr facility, the delivery at this time has come as a complete surprise to both the US and Israelis who had hoped to muster support for increased sanctions against Iran via the UN before the delivery took place. This latest development would seem to preclude Russia from any such endorsement at the UN meaning that there is no longer any likelihood of any further UN sanctions against Iran. This, coupled with last weeks release of the NIE saying that US intelligence agencies have no evidence of any Iranian nuclear program since at least since 2003, has meant that Israel will have to reconsider its position with regard to any possible attack against Iran’s nuclear facilities.

Since the nuclear fuel has been delivered to the Bushehr nuclear facility in Iran’s south-west, an Israeli attack on the plant will now not be possible due to the risk of radio-active contamination and the proximity of the facility relative to Iraq and Kuwait and the Gulf region generally. While the Iranians have guaranteed that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) can have access to the facility to ensure the proper use of the Russian supplied fuel, it is unlikely to deter the Israelis from casting their eyes toward Irans other facilities which are designed to produce Iranian nuclear fuel which the Israelis allege is for a nuclear weapons program.

Meanwhile, Bush has been quick to spin Russia’s supply of nuclear fuel to Iran arguing that it proves that Iran has no need to enrich uranium itself. Iran has insisted, however, that, under the terms of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) it has the right to produce its own nuclear fuel. While Russia has suggested to the Iranians that, for the sake of placating the demands of Israel and the US, that it does not pursue enriching its own uranium, Russia has not insisted that Iran cease its enrichment program and, clearly, have certainly not made any fuel deliveries from Russia conditional upon ceasing their enrichment program.

So, where does this leave the Israelis? Basically the Israeli position will remain essentially unchanged. They will continue to argue that Iran is actively pursuing a nuclear weapons program and they will continue to plan for their destruction – now excluding the Bushehr plant, of course. The endgame for the Israelis has never changed; their real goal is not stopping Iran’s nuclear weapons program – they know full well, just as the IAEA do, that Iran doesn’t have one – but to destroy the power of the Iranian Islamic state and change the regime. This, in turn, will allow the Israelis to deal with their enemies on their doorstep, Syria, Hizbollah and Hamas, who they hope will capitulate to Israeli demands thus allowing the Israeli Zionists to fulfil their dream of a Greater Israel.

Friday, December 14, 2007


The Reuters report that appeared in Ha’aretz today speculates on three possibilities as to who may have been responsible for the assassination of Lebanese General Francois al-Hajj who was killed by a car bomb on Wednesday.

First, the report suggests, ‘perhaps it was al Qaeda-type militants striking in payback for Hajj's role in the army's summer onslaught on fighters based in the Palestinian refugee camp of Nahr al-Bared.’

Then again, could it have been ‘Syria warning the army not to tilt toward the United States or end its tolerance for the armed activities of the Shi'ite Hezbollah group?’

Or ‘maybe it was forces unwilling to see the army led by an officer seen as friendly to Hezbollah and close to a Christian opposition leader.’

Option three is interesting, though not unsurprisingly, rather vague. Now, an ‘army led by an officer seen as friendly to Hezbollah and close to a Christian opposition leader’ could only pose a problem for one entity that would have the wherewithal and the actual temerity to do something about it; a nation that has not baulked in the past at either covertly or overtly assassinating its enemies and potential enemies and, at the same time, make political capital out of the assassination by making it seem as though it was carried out by another of its enemies; a nation who, specifically, has an organisation whose predecessors virtually invented the art of the modern car-bomb back in 1947.

The fact is, Syria does not at all benefit by this mans death; indeed, Syria is unlikely to be involved if for no other reason than it is very much aware that the Western finger of blame is likely to be pointed to them whenever anyone in the Lebanese hierarchy is assassinated regardless of whose ‘side’ they are on.

Fatah al-Islam, the al Qaeda-type militants referred to in the first possibility, would not have the expertise in logistics or materials needed to mount such a sophisticated operation.

That just leaves those ‘forces unwilling to see the army led by an officer seen as friendly to Hezbollah and close to a Christian opposition leader’. Would such an assassination be of benefit to the cause of deliberate destabilisation of a nation that harbours an enemy on its doorstep? Could such destabilisation lead ultimately to a confrontation with the ultimate enemy of Israel and the US?
A conspiracy theory, one might ask? Well, yes. A conspiracy to assassinate, an assassination that succeeded, it definitely was. A theory? Yes again, but then so are the other two possibilities.

Thursday, December 13, 2007


As many commentators have observed, even some frustrated neoconservative writers, the release of the latest National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) has effectively precluded the US from making a first strike against Iran over Iran’s alleged nuclear weapons program.

However, while the NIE has effectively precluded the US from making the first strike, it has also achieved two other important and related potential consequences. One is that it has also now removed any lingering doubts that Russia or China may have had about not supporting any further UN sanctions against Iran while, at the same time, and because of that lack of support in the UN from the Russians and the Chinese, has placed the onus on a first strike against Iran on Israel who now seem more determined than ever to take on the task.

But it is not a task the Israelis would take on lightly. They are acutely aware that, unlike their attack on the Iraqi nuclear facility at Osirak in 1981, any attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities will require substantial help and support from the US. There is no doubt that any planning for such a raid by the Israelis will need to include US collusion and, once the initial strike by the Israelis has been made, Israel will need to rely on overt and direct US military support to prevent any counter-attack probability by the Iranians.

Clearly, the latest NIE has been deliberately released in order to allow Israel to plan on the basis that Israel will make the initial strike while the US provide all support instantly after the first strike has been made. In other words, the NIE has created a fait accompli for Israel to have no option, if it so decides, but to make the first strike. The only alternative is for Iran to be left alone since neither Russia or China are likely to support further sanctions against Iran in the light of the NIE.

One should bear in mind that Iran’s so-called nuclear weapons program is merely a casus belli to promote Israel and the US administrations real aim which is regime change in Iran.

In the end the NIE has changed nothing in terms of the endgame for both the US and Israel who want regime change in Iran. What it has done, in fact, is simply made it easier for Israel to take the decision to do the job. There is no more procrastination.

The world is a step closer to possible disaster.

Tuesday, December 11, 2007


Benjamin Netanyahu was telling his new chum the French President Nicholas Sarkozy that the “Iranian missile and fissile activity continues with great momentum, so pressure must be intensified.” Meanwhile, the new Israeli ambassador to the UK, Ron Prosser, was telling a British newspaper: “At the current rate of progress Iran will reach the technical threshold for producing fissile material by 2009”. Tzipi Livni, at a NATO Foreign Ministers conference in Brussels last Friday told her audience that: “Tehran is close to crossing the technological threshold, after which it will be able to secretly produce nuclear weapons without supervision”.

In not one of the above mentioned instances was there any evidence whatsoever to support any one of the claims.

The world’s foremost authority on Iran’s nuclear status, the International Atomic Energy Authority (IAEA), has not been able to find any evidence at all that concurs with any of Israel’s claims. How does Netanyahu not trust the IAEA enough to tell them how he knows that ‘Iranian missile and fissile activity continues with great momentum’? Does Prosser know something that the IAEA doesn’t when he asserts that ‘at the current rate of progress Iran will reach the technical threshold for producing fissile material by 2009’? And is Livni holding out on the IAEA when she says ‘Tehran is close to crossing the technological threshold’?

The war against Iraq was instigated on exactly the same kind of claims. Is it not time the world asked; where is the evidence? It seems the mainstream media aren’t game to ask despite having been made complete fools of last time. Yet again the mainstream media is allowing itself to be the propaganda medium for warmongers.


Outgoing Israeli National Security Council head, Ilan Mizrahi, has told the Jerusalem Post that ‘Israel had concrete evidence that Iran was developing a nuclear weapon’. He went on to say ‘that Israel's evidence that Iran was developing nuclear weapons demonstrated the urgency of stopping the country's nuclear program as soon as possible’.

One has to keep asking; WHAT EVIDENCE?

Why hasn’t this evidence been handed over to the IAEA? Could it be that IT SIMPLY DOESN’T EXIST?

Monday, December 10, 2007


Despite the total lack of evidence, Israel is stepping up the propaganda and rhetoric of the myth of an Iranian nuclear weapons program in its effort to overcome the disappointment of the latest US National Intelligence Estimate which told the world that Iran had given up its nuclear weapons program in 2003. Yesterday, according to Ha’aretz, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert told his government ministers that Israel ‘would continue to work alongside the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in order to expose covert Iranian activities and investigate its military program to develop nuclear weapons’.

The problem with this piece of blatant propaganda is that the IAEA aren’t out to ‘expose covert Iranian activities’ on behalf of Israel. The IAEA exists solely to monitor the nuclear programs, weapons or power generating, of all nations that the UN have an interest in on behalf of the UN. The IAEA doesn’t exist for the sole purpose of rubber stamping the accusations and allegations of Israel and the US simply so that a casus belli for war can be found. The US and Israel tried that exact same stunt in the lead up to war against Iraq. It didn’t work then inasmuch that the IAEA didn’t bend to US and Israeli demands, accusations and allegations of Iraqi nuclear weapons – not that that stopped the US from invading anyway – and it is unlikely to work now.

Time and time again the IAEA have gone into Iran and found absolutely nothing to even suggest that Iran is pursuing nuclear technology for any purpose other than power generation. For all the well-known resources of the Israeli intelligence organisation, Mossad, no evidence has been found by the Israelis to suggest anything different; and one can be sure that if they had they would quickly be telling the world about it.

But, for all the propaganda and rhetoric, what is really sticking in the throat of the rest of the Arab nations of the region is not so much whether or not Iran may be pursuing nuclear weapons, but the hypocrisy of Israel’s claims about Iran’s nuclear program. Israel is the number one nation that is jumping up and down about Iran’s supposed obfuscation over its nuclear program when Israel itself cannot even be honest about its own nuclear program. US Defence Secretary Robert Gates while at a recent conference in Bahrain was asked whether he thought Israel's nuclear program posed a threat to the region, Gates replied: "No, I do not." The remark was greeted with howls of laughter from the Arab leaders and officials assembled.

Never mind that it is the US and Israel that do actually have nuclear weapons and never mind that it is the US that has openly said that it would pre-emptively use nuclear weapons, even against a non-nuclear weaponed state, and never mind that, considering the closeness of the Israel-US alliance, that Israel would likely adopt a similar stance if it felt it needed to.

But the world should not lose sight of the real motives behind the US and Israeli propaganda and rhetoric about Iran’s ‘nuclear weapons program’. The real reason for their stance against Iran is to promote the idea of ‘regime change’. Even if Iran gave up entirely its nuclear program, Israel and the US would then need to search for some other casus belli to promote regime change. Both Israel and the US know that regime change is not going to come from within Iran and that the only way to affect regime change is to either neutralise the current regimes power or obliterate it entirely. Without regime change in Iran, Israel is unable to move forward in its plans to create a Greater Israel by crushing all resistance to it. It is Iran’s support of Syria, Hizbollah and Hamas that are thwarting all that the Israeli right-wing are seeking to achieve.

The Israelis and the US believe that if Iran capitulates, then so will all the other enemies of Israel that are supported by Iran.

The neocons and warmongers of the US are willing to risk the nuclear annihilation of some nations in order to create a Greater Israel that has hegemony over the Middle East. One can rest assured, however, that, if any nation gets destroyed by nuclear weapons, it will not be Israel or the US.

Therein lies the ultimate hypocrisy.

Friday, December 07, 2007


The recently released National Intelligence Estimate on Iran’s nuclear ambitions has sent the neoconservatives into a frenzy of disbelief and recrimination against the CIA suggesting even that the CIA are plotting to undermine President George W. Bush and his stance against Iran.

Bush and his Secretary of State, Condoleeza Rice, have been insisting that Iran has been developing production facilities for enriching uranium to the levels needed to produce a nuclear weapon. Bush and Rice have also been insisting that the world can stop Iran enriching uranium by using diplomacy via the UN but have not, however, taken the military option ‘off the table’. Meanwhile, Vice-President Cheney has been saying that diplomacy is not going to work inferring that the only option is to militarily destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities. Cheney is backed up by neoconservatives both inside the administration and in the think-tanks and commentariat.

The neoconservatives have been the most ardent supporters of military action against Iran. In June of this year arch-neoconservative theorist, Norman Podhoretz, wrote his now well known article, ‘The Case for Bombing Iran’ in which he called, indeed prayed, for the destruction of Iran’s nuclear facilities. He felt sure that Bush “…will find it possible to take the only action that can stop Iran from following through on its evil intentions both toward us and toward Israel.” The NIE report, therefore, has come as a blow to Podhoretz. In his latest commentary Podhoretz accuses the CIA of plotting against Bush. He writes: “But I entertain an even darker suspicion. It is that the intelligence community, which has for some years now been leaking material calculated to undermine George W. Bush, is doing it again. This time the purpose is to head off the possibility that the President may order air strikes on the Iranian nuclear installations.”

Podhoretz is not the only neocon that is furious over the report. Ultra neocon warhawk Michael Ledeen, the so-called ‘Resident Scholar of the Freedom Chair’ at neocon headquarters, the American Enterprise Institute, finds the report simply unbelievable and can barely contain his seething cynicism and contempt of the ‘Intelligence Community’.

Max Boot, meanwhile, writing in the Wall Street Journal tries desperately to hide his disappointment of the implications of the report by reiterating the usual propaganda and rhetoric that the neocons have been spouting ever since the ousting of Shah and adding that he believes that many of the Arab states in the region wouldn’t mind seeing Iran attacked in order to ensure that Iran doesn’t become a regional nuclear power.

One of the most hawkish of all of the neocons, John Bolton, has also waded into the argument saying, predictably, that the report is simply wrong and the Intelligence Community “…is engaging in policy formulation rather than "intelligence" analysis, and too many in Congress and the media are happy about it.”

Bolton begrudgingly concedes, however, that: “While the president and others argue that we need to maintain pressure on Iran, this ‘intelligence’ torpedo has all but sunk those efforts, inadequate as they were.”

Certainly, short of some other startling evidence surfacing that contradicts the NIE report, or, alternatively, some other ‘event’ happening that can be blamed on Iran, the NIE report has effectively put an end to the notion that the US will unilaterally and pre-emptively attack Iran. But, as I and others have already written, the NEI report would not preclude the US from covertly supporting an initial attack on Iran by the Israelis and then overtly attacking the Iranians immediately after an Israeli initial attack in order to prevent an Iranian counter attack.

The NIE report has pushed the neocons further now into the Israeli right-wing Zionist camp because it is now only the Israelis that will be able to launch a pre-emptive attack against Iran.

But then, isn’t that what the neoconservatives wanted in the first place? An attack against the Iranians for the sake of Israel’s quest for a Greater Israel? And doesn’t it almost get Bush and the not-quite-as-hawkish members of his administration of the ‘warmonger’ hook – a call American public opinion is unlikely to tolerate?

So where does the NIE report now leave us?

Essentially, all it has done is put a slightly new slant on the propaganda and rhetoric against Iran. Since the issue of Iran’s nuclear ambitions is merely a smoke screen for Israeli and neocon calls for ‘regime change’ generally, the NIE report has simply moved the onus of effecting ‘regime change’ from the US to Israel.

Just as an aside, while the NIE report says that Iran stopped its ‘nuclear weapon program’ in 2003, the inference is that Iran had a nuclear weapon program prior to 2003. The reality is that there is still not a skerrick of evidence to suggest that Iran had a nuclear weapon program before 2003.


In a follow up to the above report, it seems Israel has been quick to warn Iran of military action telling Iran to “…co-operate or pay the price”. Since Iran has actually nothing to ‘co-operate’ about, especially in the light of the NIE report, one can expect that Israel will take military action.

Wednesday, December 05, 2007


The Likudniks and right-wing Zionists of Israel are furious as are Vice-President Dick Cheney and his band of neoconservative cohorts both within the administration and in the think-tanks. The recently released National Intelligence Estimate has effectively put a huge dent in their plans to use Iran’s nuclear weapon ambitions as a casus belli to attack Iran in order to effect ‘regime change’ since the report says that Iran had shelved its nuclear weapon ambitions since 2003. But does this really get Iran off the hook as far as a preemptive attack by either Israel or the US or both is concerned?

The report only states that Iran’s nuclear weapons plans have been on hold since 2003. However, Iran still continues to enrich uranium for use in its planned nuclear powered electrical energy generation program and it is this that now seems to dominate Israeli concerns causing Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to continue the drive for further sanctions against Iran. The problem for the warhawks in continuing to press their case for sanctions against Iran is that their earlier, and successful, calls for sanctions against Iran in order to get Iran to suspend all uranium enrichment, even that which only enriched uranium for use in power generation, was based on the premise that Iran did have an active and ongoing secret nuclear weapons program.

Both Olmert and his Defence Minister, Ehud Barak, despite the NIE report, which they became aware of at the Annapolis meeting of last week, maintain that Iran has reactivated their nuclear weapons program though, as usual, the Israelis are unable to provide any evidence of this.

The upshot of the NIE report is that, while it has made a dent in US plans to pre-emptively attack Iran since the administration would now find it difficult to get congressional or public support for such an attack, it would not prevent the Israelis from attacking Iran’s scattered nuclear facilities. Such an attack would be covertly supported by the US up to the point of an actual raid by the Israelis and then openly supported with, most likely, US military action against Iran to pre-empt any Iranian counter-attack against Israel.

The bottom line is; the NIE hasn’t really made any difference to the warhawks desire for regime change in Iran but it has put the onus back on to Israel to open such an attack against Iran. This may be done either directly with Israel simply springing a surprise attack against Iran’s nuclear facilities or they may try, as they have done in the past, to provoke Iran into showing its hand by attacking Hamas in the Gaza and possibly Hizbollah in south Lebanon as well. Another possible scenario would be for Israel to simultaneously attack Hamas, Hizbollah and Iran and maybe even Syria as well, and then pull back their attack on Iran leaving the US to handle Iran while Israel deal with Hamas, Hizbollah and Syria. It’s an ‘all or nothing’ final confrontation scenario but it may well be the last opportunity the US and the Israeli warhawks get this side of the 2008 Presidential Election, assuming there is one – but that’s another story…


Israeli Defence Minister has said that he is holding off from ordering a full-on invasion of the Gaza for the time being but has warned that it is “time to kill those that carry out attacks against Israelis”.

Disgusting remarks like this seem to be totally ignored by the Western media yet one can imagine the furore from the West if Hamas or Hizbollah said: ‘It is time to kill those that carry out attacks against the Palestinian people’. The reality is that Israelis are already killing those that are carrying out attacks against Israel – and also a lot more that aren’t. Palestinian fighters, particularly in the Gaza, are firing shells and rockets into Israel in an effort to get the Israelis to desist from attacking Palestine and the Palestinians yet the Israelis are making it seem as though they are the ones that are suffering.

The Israeli Zionists should be reminded that it is they that are on real estate that does not belong to them and it is they that have created the Gaza Ghetto. The Palestinian people have every right to defend themselves against aggression, persecution and occupation.

Saturday, December 01, 2007


The first sign of even the slightest possibility of any international accommodation of the Palestinians via the UN and the Zionist Israeli government backs off. The US have pulled the plug on a UN resolution endorsing an agreement to talk about a plan to end conflict by the end of 2008 at the behest of the Israelis.

Not only has the peace process not been able to make to first base at the UN but the Israelis are now waiting patiently for the excuse they need to invade the Gaza Strip. Israeli Terrorist Chief Ehud Barak has said that “…every passing day brought Israel closer to a major operation in the Gaza Strip.

Already Israeli IAF terrorists have killed four Palestinians which they attacked early Saturday morning as they went about their legitimate policing duties in the Gaza. Barak is now only awaiting an excuse to launch a major offensive that could herald the full-on ethnic cleansing of the Gaza Strip. As usual, the Israeli Zionist terrorists are looking for a casus belli to begin their operations.

And the world sits back and watches the whole disaster unfold before their eyes with barely a murmur of protest.