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.

Sunday, March 28, 2010



Last Friday the New York Times published an article by NYT writer David Sanger. Entitled ‘Imagining an Israeli Strike on Iran’, the article documents a December 2009 Brookings Institution war game simulation in which Israel launches a pre-emptive unilateral strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities.

From the very beginning, however, the simulation is fundamentally flawed on two fronts: Firstly, it assumes that Israel is able to unilaterally launch a strike against Iran from Israel without US knowledge or connivance; and, second, it presumes that Israel’s primary goal is to knock out Iran’s nuclear capacity.

While the simulation does take into account Hezbollah and Hamas retaliatory action against Israel, it infers that such counter-retaliatory action Israel takes against Hezbollah and Hamas, which may include launching a massive air offensive followed by a full-on ground assault, is merely for preventative and containment purposes.

To begin with, it should be made clear that there is absolutely no way that Israel could launch a strike against Iran from Israel without the US knowing about it. The logistics of attempting to launch such a strike unilaterally and covertly make it impossible. There is only one way that Israel could launch an attack against Iran without the US or anybody else knowing about it and that is via cruise missiles launched from submarines. So far all the chatter in the media has been about either the US launching an air attack against Iran which it would do from its carrier fleets in the Gulf and bases in the Indian Ocean and other bases around the Gulf , or, alternatively, Israel making the first strike by air from its bases in Israel.

In the covert pre-emptive unilateral scenario imagined in the simulation, Israel would need to gain permission to use Saudi Arabian airspace since neither Jordan nor Iraq could be asked for secrecy reasons. Even ignoring secrecy reasons, both Jordan and Iraq are very unlikely to give permission for political reasons. Saudi Arabia may consider such a request but, since the US is a close ally of Saudi Arabia, would not do so without US knowledge of such a request being made. There has already been some speculation that Saudi Arabia has already given permission for Israel to use Saudi airspace for an attack against Iran, though the Saudis deny this, but, even if it were true, it is doubtful that the Saudis would allow such an attack to go ahead without US clearance.

Israel could simply just not ask for permission to fly through other another nation’s airspace and just go ahead and do it anyway but that would make in-flight refuelling impossible since tanker aircraft would need to be available within airspace that they do not have permission to be in.

An over-water flight via the Red Sea, over the Gulf of Aden and then over the Arabian Sea, then over the Gulf of Oman and into Iran from the south would be possible but fraught with huge problems, not least of which is the massive distances involved and, therefore, the refuelling problems, and also the diminution in the element of surprise because of the time and distance.

Even the shortest route via Saudi airspace will require Israeli strike aircraft to refuel at least once in a round trip from Israel to Iranian targets and back to Israel. The large amounts of fuel required for such an operation, together with all the follow-up operations the Israelis will then fly against Hezbollah and Hamas, will need to come from the US which means the US will know, when an order for large amounts of military jet fuel comes in, that Israel are planning a major operation. Secretly stockpiling military jet fuel is not an option as fuel use can easily be audited and jet fuel does not have a very long shelf-life if quality is to be maintained.

The upshot of all of this is that it would be utterly impossible for Israel to launch any pre-emptive unilateral covert strike against Iran’s facilities from Israel without US collusion let alone knowledge.

Virtually all of the mainstream media’s comments and assumptions about the possibility of any attack against Iran by either Israel or the US or both are based on the presumption that the reason for such an attack is to deprive Iran of its nuclear facilities and its ability to build nuclear weapons.

This is not the case.

The ‘Iran has a nuclear weapons program’ rhetoric is designed solely and specifically to manipulate western public opinion so that, when such an attack does occur, the Israeli and American people will be more likely to accept the fait accompli of such a strike. Part of the rhetoric is that the regime in Iran is seeking such weapons in order to destroy Israel and that the regime in Iran is so evil that it may even give these weapons to terrorists who could then use them against the US and so, therefore, the regime needs to be changed.

All these scenarios exist without the slightest evidence that Iran is considering any such thing and, moreover, without any evidence whatsoever that Iran has any nuclear weapons program. Again, the accusations are mere propaganda designed to demonise Iran in order to gain Western public opinion support for a strike against Iran.

The real problem that Israel has with Iran is not its ‘nuclear weapons program’ but its support for Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in the Gaza. Without Iran’s support, neither Hezbollah nor Hamas could resist for long concerted Israeli advances into Gaza and Lebanon. Since Western public opinion would not tolerate Israel simply attacking, invading and occupying the Gaza and Lebanon, something which they have tried before on a number of occasions, a casus belli needs to be arranged whereby they could justify just such an attack. That casus belli would be a pre-emptive simultaneous attack on Hezbollah and Hamas in order to prevent any retaliation from Hezbollah and Hamas after a strike against Iran – or, at least, that would be the given casus belli.

For the world that is watching on as these events unfold, the attack on Iran will be the focus of world attention because such an attack, which, despite the inference to the contrary, will, indeed, involve the full support of the US and will not just be confined to the destruction of Iran’s nuclear facilities. The destruction of Irans defence and governmental institutions via a devastating aerial bombardment assault that may even involve the use of so-called ‘tactical’ nuclear weapons will simultaneously take place to ensure that Iran capitulates to US demands for a compliant government. In other words, Iran won’t be invaded but, rather, bombed into submission. Meanwhile, Israeli forces will assault and invade the Gaza and south Lebanon up to the Litani River and fully occupy the West Bank. Syria too may well be attacked in an effort to preclude any efforts the Syrians make to support Hezbollah or to pre-empt any attack on Israel by Syria, though a direct Syrian attack against Israel would be very unlikely.

David Sanger’s efforts to present a Brookings Institution simulation of an Israeli covert pre-emptive unilateral attack against Iran via the pages of the New York Times is just a part of the propaganda attempt that is just part of the manipulation of public opinion. The scenarios described do not stand up to any analytical scrutiny nor do they equate at all with the geo-political reality that currently exists beyond outside of the publics gaze.

Friday, March 26, 2010


It may seem as though the US and Israel are at loggerheads at the moment over Israel’s decision to build in occupied East Jerusalem and to continue expanding settlements in the West Bank. The perception is that the two of them have each painted themselves into a corner with neither now able to move.

It is, though, only a perception. The reality is that Obama needs to placate US public opinion about Israel being the fly in the ointment of bringing about peace between Israel and the Palestinians, and Netanyahu, for his part, needs to placate the right-wing Zionists of both Israel and the US over settlements and building in East Jerusalem.

However, all is not as it seems.

Netanyahu himself is a right-wing Zionist dedicated to the cause of creating a Greater Israel who, by his actions historically, and despite rhetoric designed specifically to appease the US, has demonstrated his commitment to never allowing a Palestinian state to exist.

While Obama makes the appropriate noises about insisting that Netanyahu backs down on the settlements issues, Obama knows that Israel has most of Congress in its pocket, including Democrats, who remain one hundred percent supportive of the Zionists and their resolve to create a Greater Israel at the expense of the Palestinian people. Obama also knows that Netanyahu will not back down from his stance. So, the question is; why has Obama allowed this situation to develop? The answer lies in American public opinion.

Israel’s overtly bad behaviour in the way it deals with its enemies over the last few years, starting noticeably in the 2006 war against Hezbollah in which Israel indiscriminately bombed civilians in Lebanon, and then again later in the 2008/2009 war against the people of the Gaza in which thousands of innocent men, women and children were killed and wounded in yet another indiscriminate onslaught, has alienated Americans – indeed, the world – from further supporting Israel. They see Israel as having shown its true colours and many are concerned that Israel’s agenda is costing America dearly both in blood and treasure at a time when the American people themselves are suffering financially. As a result, Obama has no choice but to be seen making a stand against Israeli intransigence.

So, given that, despite the apparent impasse, America, via its Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, has declared its undying support for Israel, how does Obama get out of the predicament?

What Obama and Netanyahu need now is something to happen that is of such a magnitude that it will render the rift into something bordering on utterly trivial and a non-event.

The link above is interesting. Just about all of the congress people that have commented giving their unconditional support to Israel have mentioned Iran as being both Israel and America’s most serious problem. It is clear that they have no interest in the plight of the Palestinians and that they support the notion of a Greater Israel existing in a Middle East that includes an Iranian government that is no longer able to support the Palestinians or Israel’s near-neighbour Arabs in Lebanon.

When the final confrontation between Israel, the US, and Iran happens, the last thing anyone is going to be thinking about is how many new homes the Israelis are going to build in East Jerusalem, the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and south Lebanon after it’s all over – assuming, that is, that there’s anything left for anyone to build on anyway.

Wednesday, March 17, 2010


Recently an article appeared on the online journal ‘Foreign Policy’. I would invite readers to read it before reading my response below.

The article appears to be a reasonable account of the current state of affairs; however, it falls short of facing up to the long-term endgame agenda of the Israelis.

War between Israel and Hezbollah is always 'imminent'. It might not happen today, in which case it will be 'imminent' tomorrow. And, if not then, then it will be 'imminent' the next day, and so on. The reality is; it is as ‘imminent’ today as it was on 11 July 2006, the day before the Second Lebanon War started.

Whether or not one accepts war between Israel and Hezbollah is ‘imminent’ is beside the point; what does need to be understood is that war between Israel and Hezbollah is all but inevitable. But such a war will not be just between Israel and Hezbollah.

Hezbollah have significantly strengthened both its weapons arsenal and its powerbase in Lebanon and enjoys considerable popular support particularly after their performance during and immediately after the Second Lebanon War. In light of this, Israel is not likely to underestimate the tenacity and ability of Hezbollah to resist another war against Israel. That’s not say, though, that Israel will not attempt again to destroy Hezbollah; it simply means that a future war against Hezbollah by Israel will be far more concerted and, therefore, much more devastating then any of their other wars. It will not be a war that the Israelis can afford to lose again.

Hezbollah is supported heavily by Iran. Without Iran Hezbollah would not be able to resist Israeli attacks. No debate or discussion about the prospects of war between Israel and Hezbollah can be reasonably take place without consideration to Iran’s role in such a conflict. Since a war with Hezbollah is likely to be part of a significant do or die ‘final confrontation’, Israel will not only need to take on Hezbollah and attempt to deal it a death blow, but, in attempting to do so, will also need to eliminate Iran from the equation; hence the rhetoric and propaganda about Iran’s purported ‘nuclear weapons program’.

The ‘Iran has a nuclear weapons program’ meme is designed solely for the purpose of influencing public opinion to ultimately support an attack against Iran. Despite Israeli, US and their Western allies insistence that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons, there is no evidence whatsoever to support such claims.

The article notes that “any Israeli strike would require at least American acquiescence, which does not seem to be in the offing”. An Israeli strike would indeed require American acquiescence, but there is no evidence to support that it would not be ‘in the offing’. US and Israeli relations today may seem to be drifting apart over Israeli settlements in Jerusalem but when push comes to shove, and as Hillary Clinton has already stated, the US will continue with its unrelenting support of Israel.

The US cannot be seen to be favouring Israel in the face of such obvious intransigence from the Israelis over the West Bank settlements and Israeli housing in East Jerusalem and, hence, the apparent disagreement on the issue. But this should not cloud ones view of America’s commitment to, not just ensuring Iran remains without nuclear arms, but – and far more to the point – regime change in Iran. With Iran removed from the equation, which would also effectively remove Syria as well, Israel will feel far more confident about taking on both Hezbollah and Hamas which they would probably attempt simultaneously.

The upshot will be a final confrontation whereby Israel likely will initiate an attack with the covert collaboration of the US against Iran which the US will then join in openly exclaiming they have little choice in order to support their close ally Israel, while Israel at the same time pre-emptively attacks simultaneously Hezbollah and Hamas in order, so they will say, to prevent retaliatory action from Hezbollah and Hamas over Israel’s attack against Iran.

There are, of course, a number of permutations to this scenario with regard to how such a ‘final confrontation’ might start but the endgame agenda for Israel will be the same regardless of how it starts – the neutering of Iran and Syria, the destruction Hezbollah and Hamas and a compliant Palestinian people that will capitulate to any and all Israeli demands that may include annexation of the Gaza Strip and the West Bank and the permanent occupation of south Lebanon up to the Litani River and its eventual annexation into a Greater Israel.

All this naturally takes a great deal of planning and such a final confrontation is hardly likely to be spontaneous, though both the Israelis and the US will be anxious for it to seem as though it is. For this reason the Israelis and the US have created the illusion of ‘imminence’. Up until when such a final confrontation does occur, the ‘on again, off again’ appearance of the situation will have served its purpose inasmuch that such a final confrontation will no longer come as any surprise to anyone.

One should take little notice of the propaganda and the rhetoric that the media reports as news. The geopolitical realities are that, at the same time as America is chastising Israel over the settlements and building issues, they are still busy shipping massive amounts of military jet fuel, military diesel fuel together with bombs, rockets and other ordnance to Israeli military depots and bases. Nothing has changed at all.

While the Zionists control Israel, war will always be ‘imminent’. And war between Israel and its enemies Iran, Syria, Hezbollah and Hamas will be inevitable.

Tuesday, March 16, 2010


One would have thought by now that it would be obvious to the entire world that the Israeli endgame is that there never be a Palestinian state and that the state of Israel will ultimately incorporate the West Bank, the Golan Heights, the Gaza Strip and south Lebanon up to the Litani River, all of which will become part of what the Zionists hope will be a Greater Israel.

There have been no end of so-called 'peace talks' including the Jarring Mission, the Rogers Plan, the Reagan Plan, the Oslo Accords, the Wye River Memorandum, the Camp David Summit, the Taba Summit, the Elon Peace Plan, the Nusseibeh-Ayalon Agreement, the Arab Peace Initiative, the Road Map to Peace, the Madrid Conference, the Hebron Protocol, the Annapolis Conference, the Beirut Summit, the Peace Valley Plan, etc., all of which have been going on for years and none of which – not one – have amounted to anything, and all the time while these talks and negotiations have been going on, Israel has slowly and insidiously permeated its way onto lands that do not belong to them. Today, Israel’s modus operandi has become blatantly transparent. They have demonstrated that there will be no let up in the building of settlements in the West Bank and in East Jerusalem despite the rhetoric about wanting ‘peace’ – knowing full well that peace on Israel’s terms will not ever be acceptable to the Palestinian people and nothing that the Palestinians will concede to will ever be enough for the Zionists.

Compounding the problem is that successive US administrations have bowed to the Israelis by not just letting them get away with it, but by continuing to help the Israelis with their persecution of the Palestinian people in the Gaza and the West Bank, and the Arabs in Lebanon and Syria, , by supplying the Israelis with the military hardware, ordnance and fuel they demand to keep up their pressure on the Palestinians and the Arabs with the intention of breaking down their resistance to Israeli aggression and expansionist intentions. And all this despite America’s occasional huffing and puffing about Israeli intransigence on Palestine-Israel relations

The reality is this: Netanyahu and his Zionist allies both in Israel and among the neoconservatives and their supporters in the US and elsewhere in the West have absolutely no intention of ever allowing a Palestinian state to exist.

Not ever.

The quicker the West understands this, the better.

The only possible solution now is the One State binational solution. This will take time but the alternative is the demise of any notion of Palestinians having any state of their own and the total disenfranchisement of all Arabs in an expanded Greater Israel state. It is up to the peoples of the world to demand and ensure that both ordinary peace-loving Jews of Israel and the Palestinian people get a future that can be shared free of persecution and the continual threat of death and destruction.

Wednesday, March 10, 2010


About this time last year I wrote that there was a chance that Obama might think about talking to the Taliban instead of warring with them. Of course, nothing happened. They didn’t get beyond thinking about talking about talking.

A year later and several thousand more dead and injured in the bloodiest year since the war in Afghanistan began in October 2001, and it seems the Brits have had enough. British Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, now wants to urge the Afghan puppet President Hamid Karzai into putting more effort into pursuing peace talks with the Taliban.

Miliband’s move seems to indicate that the British have little confidence in success of the surge that began last month with a much fanfared major assault against the Taliban stronghold of Marjah in Helmand province where the Taliban, it seems, were replaced by a criminal warlord to run things there.

Talking about talks with the Taliban is nothing new. Back in September 2008, the Saudis apparently attempted to set up talks with the Taliban and the British were prepared to be involved in helping facilitating such talks. Then in October 2008, US Defence Secretary Robert Gates said that he was prepared to ‘reconcile with the Taliban’ if the Afghan government pursued talks to end the war. Needless to say, it didn’t happen.

What will eventuate from the British Foreign Secretary’s latest attempt at getting talks going is anybody’s guess but if past experience is anything to go by, then little is likely to happen. A lot will depend on how the US reacts to talks with the Taliban planned by Karzai for next month. The real fly in the ointment, however, is likely to be America’s demand that the Taliban disassociate themselves from al Qaeda in Afghanistan and the Taliban demand that all foreign troops leave Afghanistan before they talk. If both sides stick to their demands than there will be nothing happening at all except more of the same.

On the one hand we have the warmongers on the right in the US, particularly the neocons, who will accept nothing less than the complete destruction of the Taliban and al Qaeda which simply means continual and indefinite war, and on the other a realist British government fully aware that as an election approaches in the UK, public opinion will need to be listened to.

While this does seem to be the best opportunity yet, if, for no other reason, the call for talks comes from someone as high up as Miliband, one should not, however, hold ones breath.

Only time, and no doubt many more lives yet, will tell.

Monday, March 01, 2010


Australians are slowly waking up to the reality of Zionist policies against Palestinians and Zionist terrorism and murder. On Friday 26 February 2010 the UN General Assembly voted overwhelmingly in favour of investigations of the warcrimes described in the Goldstone Report.

Seven countries voted against the resolution while 98, including the UK, voted for it. There were 31 abstentions including, significantly, Australia who in the past have given Israel unquestioned support. Some 50 nations were not represented in the General Assembly, many of them absent because of the weather in New York.

This latest snub to the Israelis by the Australian government, and, to a lesser extent, the American’s, who voted against the investigations of warcrimes, follows the debacle over the Israeli’s abuse of Australian passports in the murder of Hamas official, Mahmoud Al-Mabhouh, in Dubai on 19 January 2010.

Ever since the Israeli onslaught against the Lebanese people in 2006 when Israeli atrocities and warcrimes were exposed for all the world to see, and then again, when Israel attacked the people of the Gaza Strip killing and maiming thousands of innocent civilians, the Australian people have begun to realise that Israel is not at all what it has been telling people it is. Rather than being the victim as they continuously said they were, they have in fact been shown all the while to be the oppressors. Now, after the debacle over the killing in Dubai, Israel have also shown that they have no respect for democracy, which they claim their nation is a beacon of, and that they practice state-sanctioned extra-judicial murder and have a secret service which the Zionist government of Israel allows to be the judge, jury and executioner of Israel’s enemies.

The Australian government is finally coming around to understanding what most Australians have known for years; that Israel is a fraudulent nation that oppresses its neighbours and murders those that dissent and resist Israeli aggression and oppression.

It’s time the world woke up to it as well.