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.

Thursday, November 25, 2010


On Tuesday 23 November 2010 the South Korean military launched an artillery barrage that saw its shells fall into disputed waters close to North Korea. South Korea does not deny it fired first by firing shells into the disputed waters but says the shelling was ‘away from the north’. The North Koreans had already warned the South Koreans that they would consider such an act as a direct provocation and respond accordingly.

With thousands of miles of coastline to the west, south and east that South Korea could have harmlessly fired its shells from, one needs to ask why South Korea chose to fire them knowingly toward and into disputed waters so close to North Korea. One also needs to ask why South Korea did this just days before a major joint military exercise with the US that includes the USS George Washington carrier strike group.

While the exercise had been arranged long before last Tuesdays incident, indeed, according to Pentagon spokesman Marine Col. David Lapan, the USS George Washington carrier strike group had left Japan heading for South Korea for the exercises before Obama and South Korean President Lee Myung-bec had spoken with each other about the incident, the Washington Post is spinning the story to make it seem as though President Obama has sent the carrier fleet to South Korea as a result of the incident. John Pomfret of the Washington Post writes:

In dispatching the aircraft carrier USS George Washington to the Korean Peninsula on Wednesday, the Obama administration said it was putting on a show of U.S. support for South Korea.

It is clear that the South Korean opening barrage so close to North Korea was a deliberate attempt to provoke a major incident. It is also apparent that this whole charade of the crisis being a series of spontaneous events instigated by North Korea has in reality been concocted by the US and South Korea in order to deliberately point the finger of blame for the incident at North Korea with a view to escalating the crisis. The presence of the carrier strike group in Korean seas is just an added provocation.

So, what’s the aim of all this provoking?

At best, it may be just a ploy to get the Chinese to come down hard on their ally North Korea in an effort to put another turn of the screw that puts added pressure on the North Korean regime. In which case it’s just another provocation designed to keep that particular pot boiling for whatever underhanded geo-strategic double-dealing reason the US have dreamt up as they are apt to do from time to time, usually to distract from other problems the US are having.

Or could it be something far more serious and potentially far more dangerous for the world as well as the region?

The US has been very upset about China’s refusal to bend to US demands to revalue the Yuan to favour America’s flagging dollar. The US is also very concerned about China’s increasing power as a global player politically, economically and militarily. Unlike the US, China has not spent too much of its time rattling its sabre around the world in the quest for resources. Instead it simply sends its representatives to whatever country has the resources that China doesn’t have and they do a deal. Simple as that.

The Chinese have been quietly making massive deals with countries all over the planet particularly in the resource rich and, as yet, mostly untapped African continent where they have a huge presence working on all manner of infrastructure projects in exchange for resources. This has also upset the Americans who see their own influence being usurped by China’s.

America has touted itself as the sole remaining superpower since the end of the so-called ‘Cold War’. The reality, however, is that they are no longer the only superpower and the fact is, China snuck up and overtook the US over these last few years and the US resents that.

Challenging China’s proxy, North Korea, is a way of reasserting US hegemony and status.

For the sake of the future of the world, China will, for the sake of peace, be mature enough to allow the bully boy on the block to think that he’s still numero uno and let him strut the world stage. But the world now knows differently after the fiasco of Iraq and Afghanistan and every day reveals just how much power the US really has and who the real power player is in the world today.

America should take care about who they provoke.

Monday, November 22, 2010


Despite news in the mainstream media suggesting that Sarah Palin may be running for the Presidency in 2012, one has to wonder if she really is the neocons darling anymore.

Short of the Republicans not being able to find an alternative, it seems doubtful the neoconservatives will be giving their endorsement to Palin for the 2012 Presidential race if a couple of very negative articles about her in two of neoconservatisms most popular rags, The Weekly Standard and National Review Online are anything to go by. NRO’s Mona Charen was particularly damning of Palin with her article titled ‘Why Sarah Palin Shouldn’t Run’ in which Charen tells readers:

“The Republican nominee should be someone with a vast and impressive record in government and the private sector. Voters chose a novice with plenty of star power in 2008 and will be inclined to swing strongly in the other direction in 2012. Americans will be looking for sober competence, managerial skill, and maturity — not sizzle and flash.”

Meanwhile at The Weekly Standard, neocon feature writer Matt Labash writes a review of Palin’s Alaskan ‘reality’ TV show, pretentiously called Sarah Palin’s Alaska. It’s not what Labash says that is so negative; it’s the feel of what he says. You have to read between the lines to get the idea that he’s not overly impressed by the idea that Palin may the next President of the US. There’s that plus the complete absence in The Weekly Standard of any endorsement either by ads or other articles for Sarah Palin. Same with Commentary magazine where she’s barely got a mention for yonks.

So, if it isn’t Palin that gets the nod from the neocons, who will it be?

Monday, November 15, 2010


What exactly is going to happen during the 90 day freeze on settlement building in the West Bank that is going to cost the American people some 33.3 million dollars a day? What’s going on here when it’s clear that absolutely nothing will be achieved by the end of the 90 day freeze except Israel will be better off by 30 billion dollars worth of advanced military jets?

When the 90 day freeze ends, then building simply resumes and the whole process is back where it started. Do Obama and Clinton really believe that a Palestinian state will somehow be negotiated during those 90 days? They’ve been ‘negotiating’ for the last three decades; what makes them think it’s going to be all sorted out within three months?

When will the people of the world wake up to what’s really going on here? The American people are being ripped off by billions – all of which will end up in the hands of the aircraft manufacturers while the aircraft will eventually end up in the hands of the Israelis who will use them to continue attacking the Palestinians with.

And, at the end of the 90 day freeze, there will still be no Palestinian state and the Israelis will continue to build their Greater Israel.

Friday, November 12, 2010


With the mid-term elections out of the way the talk of war against Iran has once again moved from the back burner to the front burner. This war, however, is the one war the world must insist never happens.

Here’s why.

A war against Iran cannot be like America’s wars in Afghanistan or Iraq. To begin with, apart from a few Special Forces operations inside Iran, there most certainly will not be any ground invasion. This reason for this is multi-faceted. First, because of Iran’s geographical size – it is roughly 3.75 times the size of Iraq in area and has over 2.3 times the population – Iran would be impossible to invade and occupy. Secondly, and most obviously, the US is already stretched to its maximum in occupying Iraq and fighting in Afghanistan.

If America chose to go to war against Iran, it would have only one way of achieving any likelihood of success.

But, before discussing how America might go ahead with an attack against Iran – and why it would be folly for the world to support such an attack – one should ask what the war aims would be.

In fact, there would be two sets of war aims; one would be the aims that they would tell the world the war would be about; in other words, the propaganda and rhetoric that would be used to justify such an attack; and the other would be their real aims, the ulterior motivations for launching such an attack, aims that the West would deny but, once having come to fruition, would tell the world were merely incidental outcomes that were not planned.

The US and their allies would like the West and the rest of the world to believe that an attack against Iran would be launched in order to stop Iran from producing a nuclear weapon, a weapon that Israel claims would be used against them. Over this last decade, the West’s accusations against Iran accusing it of pursuing a ‘nuclear weapons program’ has been relentless. Yet, despite the West’s insistence that Iran has a nuclear weapons program, the West has not been able to actually produce any evidence whatsoever to support their accusations. This, however, has not stopped the rhetoric.

So, what are the real aims of attacking Iran?

The real aim of attacking is to stop Iran from supporting Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in the Gaza Strip. These two organisations are all that stands between Israel and the Israeli Zionist dream of a Greater Israel that includes the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and south Lebanon up to the Litani River. Without Iran’s support, these two organisations would find it very difficult to defend themselves against Israeli aggression and ultimate expansionism.

But, of course, Israel cannot just go marching in to conquer south Lebanon and the Gaza Strip once and for all as it would like to do if Iran were not supporting Hezbollah and Hamas. Israel needs Iran’s support of Hezbollah and Hamas in order to justify invading and occupying south Lebanon and the Gaza Strip.

For Israel it’s all a matter of timing.

If Israel and/or the US can find or manufacture an excuse to attack Iran, Israel would then tell the world that an attack against both Hamas and Hezbollah, followed by invasion and occupation, could be justified in order to prevent Hamas and Hezbollah launching a retaliatory strike against Israel on behalf of Iran. As a back-up plan, it seems Israel is also willing to take a risk war at provoking war with Iran by provoking Hezbollah by continuing military jet overflights of Lebanon while also provoking Hamas by killing farmers, air raids on Palestinian homes and on Gaza supply tunnels. If Hezbollah or Hamas retaliated using Iranian supplied weapons, then that would be all Israel and the US would need to launch an attack against Iran.

I say ‘risk’ because, if war broke out between Hezbollah and Israel and Hezbollah held back from using Iranian-supplied weapons, then Israel and the US would be deprived of a casus belli to attack Iran and Israel could well find itself in exactly the same position as it did in 2006 – losing the war.

So, we know that the US and its allies can’t actually invade and occupy Iran so; what are the alternatives?

Basically, there are two alternatives; neither of which is at all acceptable – if, indeed, attacking another country without provocation was ever ‘acceptable’. First, Israel and/or the US could launch a conventional bombing attack against Iran opening the attack against Iran’s nuclear installations in order to justify the attack in the first place, and then launching a massive all-out bombing offensive against Iran’s military and governmental institutions with the aim of forcing the Iranian government to capitulate and ask for a ceasefire at the UN. The ceasefire would then be accepted on the condition that a new regime that was acceptable to the US and Israel (and, therefore, the UN) is installed.

In this scenario thousands of Iranians are likely to be killed all over Iran.

The second alternative is even more frightening but is one that might be considered because it will likely bring about capitulation much quicker, and that is the limited use of a nuclear weapon on one or two of Iran’s smaller regional cities and/or military installations with the threat of further nuclear weapon use if the Iranian government did not comply with US demands. This is an unlikely scenario but one which might be considered. The use of conventional weapons in an attack against Iran is the most likely scenario. Again, thousands would likely be killed in Iran but this time in concentrated numbers.

At the same time as Iran is being attacked, Israel would be launching a full-on assault against Hezbollah and Hamas followed by invasion and occupation of south Lebanon and the Gaza Strip respectively. Israel may also threaten Lebanon with the use of its nuclear weapons if Hezbollah persisted in launching a full-on retaliatory strike against Israel.

The war, once started, will be fait accompli and the hope – as far as the Israelis and the US is concerned – is that Iran is subdued and with a compliant government, and that Hezbollah and Hamas are destroyed and their respective lands occupied permanently with a view to eventual annexation.

The real outcome of such a war may well be far different from what is anticipated by the US and Israel who has always believed that sheer military might and the threat of the use of nuclear weapons would bring its enemies to its knees but, as yet, have never really fully used their military might. However, as the war between Iraq and Iran during the 1980’s demonstrated, Iranians are quite willing to fight back.

If Iran is attacked, the repercussions for the world will be enormous. Oil supplies are likely to be affected immediately both in terms of availability and also in price. Hezbollah will almost certainly launch a massive attack against the Israelis if Israel attacks them. Hamas too would also retaliate. Hundreds if not thousands of Israelis would likely perish. Fighters from around the world would likely launch attacks on American and US interests everywhere.

In short, a true ‘war of terror’ would be unleashed and the ‘terror’ will be felt by both sides. If such a war were sustained for any length of time then some peoples of Western countries may take it upon themselves to attack Muslims residing in the West. Islamaphobia, already a powerful undercurrent in many Western countries, could erupt quickly into violence as it did in the 1990’s in the Balkans.

The people of the West must ensure that the US and Israel do not start any more wars because after the next war there will be no winners at all.