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

Friday, February 24, 2012


Yesterday Israeli President Shimon Peres was said to have come out against an immediate attack on Iran. Today Israel Defence Minister Ehud Barak criticised Peres’ position saying that in the end it is the Israeli government that will make decisions whether or not Israel attacks Iran and not the President.

It is an unfortunate fact that, unlike the US president, the Israeli president has little power in the decision making processes of the Israeli government. The reality is that Peres has more opportunity to influence Israeli affairs outside of Israel than within. That opportunity will arise when Peres meets with US President Obama next week ahead of a meeting Netanyahu has scheduled with Obama later on.

But, one needs to ask, how much of Peres’ reluctance to push Israel to attack Iran is just a feint to lull Iran into some kind of false sense of security?

Plans for the Israelis and the US to attack Iran have already been meticulously made. Is Peres’ apparent reluctance just a part of the propaganda designed to let the Iranians think that Israel and their Western allies are in disarray over whether or not to attack?

Time, of course, will tell.

Sunday, February 19, 2012


The way the rhetoric and propaganda is being presented to the world at the moment, one might be forgiven for thinking that any war launched against Iran will be as a result of Israeli impatience of the Obama administration’s apparent reluctance to attack Iran.

That may well be the rhetoric and the propaganda but it is far from reality.

The forthcoming attack against Iran will not be as a result of some series of events that leads to a spontaneous knee-jerk Israeli raid against Iran’s nuclear facilities but, rather, will be as a result of meticulous planning with every single detail and scenario carefully worked out beforehand.

In keeping with the current propaganda whereby Israel says it needs to act now in order to thwart Iran building a bomb at any time very soon but the US on the other hand says it needs to give economic sanctions against Iran time to bite, a war against Iran is likely to be started initially by a first strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities by Israel. This initial Israeli strike will then be immediately followed up by a massive bombing campaign against Iranian defence facilities as well as its governmental institutions by the US who will take over entirely from the Israelis who will then concentrate on attacks against Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in both the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. Both the West Bank and the Gaza Strip will then be fully occupied as will be south Lebanon up to the Litani River.

While outwardly this series of events may seem to be as a result of spontaneous escalation started by Israeli impatience, in reality it will have been well scripted and thoroughly planned months ahead and awaiting only opportunity to trigger that first strike. This plan gets Obama off the hook with the American people as the November presidential election looms. He can claim that he was a reluctant participant and, despite what he will claim to be Isreali impetuousness, will say he had no alternative to back Israel all the way after they had made the first strike. Once war is underway, the American people will far more likely be in support of it if it can be seen that Israel started it than if Obama made the first strike.

The logistics of mounting a full-on war against Iran are enormous and the propaganda effort leading up to such a war is just a part of those logistics. Both the Israelis and the US have been carefully preparing and planning for this war since at least January 2010 when the US approved money for Israel to begin stockpiling hi-tech weapons and August 2010 when the Israelis ordered massive amounts of military fuel from the US. They know they will only get one shot at realising their real war aims.

The Israelis will say, and have been saying for years, that their war aim is simply to deprive Iran of nuclear weapons and the opening shots of the war will be based on a casus belli of Iran getting too close to building a nuclear weapon. But depriving Iran of nuclear weapons is not at all their real war aims. Their real war aims are far more ambitious.

A strike against Iran will provide Israel with an opportunity to attack both Hezbollah and Hamas on the pretence of pre-empting a retaliatory strike by these groups for attacking Iran. Israel will launch an all-out attack against all its enemies under the cover of the devastating US war against Iran. Their war aims are simple; for Israel it is to eliminate Hamas and Hezbollah and begin a process of permanent occupation of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip as well, so they hope, of south Lebanon up to the Litani River that will lead to eventual annexation and the creation of a Greater Israel. The US by securing victory against the Iranians with overwhelming fire power will eliminate any opposition to US hegemony in the Middle East.

This will not simply be a knee-jerk war out of fear of a non-existent Iranian nuclear bomb threat. This war has been very carefully planned and awaits only opportunity. The aim is regime change to favour both Israel and the US, and it will be an excuse for the Israelis to also eliminate their enemies and to take the next steps toward their dream of creating a Greater Israel.


For the latest on Australia's leading racist see the Andrew Bolt: Ultra Racist blog.

Monday, February 13, 2012


Here’s a quick observation. Two articles that have appeared recently in the National Review Online have highlighted exactly how arrogant and hypocritical the neocon notion of ‘American Exceptionalism’ really is.

In one article written by neocon old hand Victor Davis Hanson, we are told that:

…America, alone of the major powers, is a multiracial open society bound by one culture, where merit, more than race, tribe, birth, or class, determines success.

There’s the arrogance.

The article that demonstrates the hypocrisy comes from another neocon, Deroy Murdock, who tells us that, far from being “a multiracial open society bound by one culture, where merit, more than race, tribe, birth, or class, determines success”, America is still a racist nation where, “If ID requirements are discriminatory, America is a lot more racist than we thought”. He explains here.

‘American Exceptionalism’? More like delusions of grandeur wrapped up in wishful thinking.


While it is true that there have been rifts between Shi’ite and Sunni Muslims in many Islamic countries, they have mainly been driven by local tribal and secular political agenda’s. Such rifts which would ordinarily be considered piffling among the two denominations and considered merely as internal power struggles within districts and some Arab nations have been propagandised over the last ten years by right-wing Israelis and their neoconservative supporters around the world in an attempt to polarise the two denominations beyond the domestic quarrels they occasionally have with each other. In the case of Iraq and Syria most of these quarrels have actually been stirred up by Western influences. It’s a classic case of divide and rule.

However, there is one area of Middle East politics where the two denominations, as illustrated below, stand hand in hand with each other, literally, and that is with their support of Arab resistance against Israeli expansionism and Zionist oppression.

President of Iran Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, on the left, is a Shi’ite Muslim, while Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh is a Sunni Muslim.

The two denominations may squabble over domestic politics in their respective nations, but when it comes to supporting the Palestinian people in their fight to defend their nation against Zionism, they are very much united.

So if Israel and the West think that a change in regime in Syria or Iran is somehow going to be of benefit to the Zionists, they'd better think again. Syrians - Shia or Sunni - will unite when it comes to regaining their lands in the Golan Heights and supporting the Palestinian and Arab peoples of south Lebanon in their fight against Israel aggression and expansionism.

Saturday, February 11, 2012


There is a certain irony in the fact that those that speak most vehemently against anti-Semitism have, in doing so, become anti-Semites themselves by virtue of grossly abusing the anti-Semite label into irrelevancy by totally misrepresenting the term for political purposes.

There was a time when the anti-Semite label was an important and powerful symbol that recognised the injustices the Jewish people have suffered during their existence. But now the label has been hijacked by the extreme Right of Zionism who have commandeered the term and trivialised it in order to demonise their detractors. Zionists and their neoconservative supporters around the world, and particularly in the US, have misapplied the anti-Semite label by accusing those who dissent against Zionism, its expansionist aims, their insistence of Jewish exclusivity within Israel and what they hope to be Greater Israel, as being ‘anti-Semites’.

Right-wing Israeli politicians and US neoconservatives have been prominent in leading the ‘anti-Semite’ smear campaign. The idea is to induce within public opinion the entirely false and deliberately deceitful notion that to be anti-Zionist is anti-Israel and anti-Jew and, therefore, anti-Semitic.

While there are indeed some anti-Zionists that truly are anti-Semitic, these people are only anti-Zionist because they really are anti-Semitic. As real Jew-haters they are actually anti-anything connected with Jews, including Zionism.

Most anti-Zionists, on the other hand, see Zionism for what it really is; a political ideology. Among anti-Zionists there are many Jewish people as well as non-Jews. Compounding their misuse of the term ‘anti-Semite’, Zionists and neoconservative have pigeon-holed anti-Zionist Jews as ‘self-hating Jews’.

As a result of their extensive abuse of the ‘anti-Semitic’ label for nefarious political purposes, Zionists and neoconservatives have rendered the term all but irrelevant. By using it as a derogatory term directed at people who clearly and quite obviously are not anti-Semites, they have diminished the true meaning of the term to the point that there is no longer any fear whatsoever of being labelled an ‘anti-Semite’ when the term is used in the context of demonising Jews and non-Jews alike that do not go along with Zionist political ideology. Since Zionists and neoconservatives use the term in a catch-all sense whereby they attempt to tar anti-Zionists with same brush as they tar real Jew-haters, all they have succeeded in achieving is destroying the significance and validity of the real meaning of the term. In other words, they have deprived Jews throughout both the Diaspora and Israel of a potent and powerful symbol that recognised the struggle Jews have endured over time.

Is not that abuse in itself an anti-Semitic act?

For a classic example of the Zionist/neoconservative deceit and misuse of the anti-Semite label, see here.

Thursday, February 09, 2012


After years of observing the events of the Middle East and Israel, if there’s one lesson that’s made itself clear, it is that nothing ever happens quickly there. It always seems to be in slow motion.

The Israeli and Western threat of action against Iran has been no exception.

Ever since the overthrow of the Shah in 1979, the threat has always existed. Today, however, the threat has moved up several notches and it now seems to be a matter of not ‘if’ action will be taken against Iran but ‘when’. Today, therefore, timing is of the political essence.

As I have said repeatedly in the past, contrary to some commentator’s view that Israel may make a unilateral strike against Iran, the reality is that logistically Israel cannot possibly strike Iran without the full cooperation of the US.

President Obama is hesitant about openly supporting an attack against Iran during this an election year. He is aware that the American people will not support yet another ‘pre-emptive war’ in the Middle East; indeed, he became President on the back of a mandate that he would end the wars that Bush had started against Afghanistan and Iraq.

This has left Obama in a position where he has had to increasingly appear to be a peacemaker rather than a warmonger as the 2012 November polling date gets closer. He has had to tread a fine line between being accused by the pro-Israel lobby of abandoning Israel and of placating the Israeli right-wing by telling them that ‘nothing has been taken off the table’.

From the Israelis point of view, they too are in a precarious position despite wanting to let loose against Iran as soon as possible. As I’ve said, the Israelis can’t move without the support of the US.

On the one hand, the Israelis could wait until the election in November and hope that a more compliant Republican president gets voted in, but on the other hand, if it seems that Obama will hang on the Presidency, then the Israelis may choose to insist that they attack Iran before the election even if Obama privately councils them not to. In that case, Obama, who has always said he will support Israel no matter what, will have little choice but to accept the fait accompli of war and go to war with Israel against Iran after Israel has fired the opening rounds against Iran’s nuclear facilities.

Whatever happens, it would be absolutely crucial for Obama to make it appear that the US is a reluctant partner in its war against Iran if he is to stand any chance of re-election. But that is all it is about – appearances. Despite Obama’s apparent reluctance to go to war, everything militarily is now in place for just that.

When push comes to shove, the US will be there with the Israelis once Israel has made the opening move. The US will launch an all-out devastating bombing war against Iran designed to bring about regime change while at the same time Israel will launch an equally devastating attack against Hezbollah and Hamas with the aim of fully occupying south Lebanon, the Gaza Strip and the West Bank and destroying their enemies once and for all.

It’s not a matter of ‘if’ anymore; it’s now just a matter of ‘when’.

Tuesday, February 07, 2012


As the West prepares to march off to yet another war in the Middle East, we should perhaps remind ourselves of who is giving the West their marching orders.

In February 2003, just weeks before the US and their allies launched their attack on Iraq and her peoples, a delegation of US congressmen, together with the US Ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton, a well known pro-Zionist and neoconservative war-hawk, were in Israel at the invitation of the Israeli government then led by Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.

Addressing the congressmen, Sharon told them ‘that Iran, Libya and Syria should be stripped of weapons of mass destruction after Iraq’. Later, Sharon told John Bolton ‘that Israel was concerned about the security threat posed by Iran, and stressed that it was important to deal with Iran even while American attention was focused on Iraq’.

Things didn’t quite work out as planned in Iraq. The Iraqi populace, instead of greeting the coalition forces as ‘liberating armies’ as they marched up the road to Baghdad, chose instead to resist the invaders. The neocons who had insisted on the war and were hoping to get their man Ahmed Chalabi into the Iraqi presidency before the summer holidays, found instead that their simplistic fantasies about the venture being a ‘cakewalk’ were turning into a nightmare that is still being played out today nine years later.

But all this hasn’t dulled the neoconservative’s enthusiasm to belatedly do as Ariel Sharon has demanded. Libya has been taken care of; Syria looks like it’s going to get the same treatment; and the whole shebang will reach a crescendo when the Final Confrontation against Iran occurs at some time in the future – and, judging by the way things are going at the moment, it could be in the very near future.

The point I really want to make here is that all of the events of the last twelve years or so haven’t been a series of unrelated or spontaneous occurrences but, rather, have been part of a grand plan carefully instigated by Israeli Zionists and their supporters in the US and around the world designed to eliminate all of Israel’s enemies who so far have successfully been able to resist the Zionist dream of creating a Greater Israel at the expense of the Palestinian people.

Thursday, February 02, 2012


Amid concerns of an imminent unilateral Israeli air strike against Iran, it should be made quite clear that, despite the rhetoric, no such attack can be made against Iran without the complete cooperation, connivance and support of the US. Such an attack, therefore, would not be unilaterally launched by Israel and any statements coming from Israel or the US saying otherwise is pure propaganda.

Obama is doing his very best in an election year to make it look as though he is acting the peacemaker. He knows that the American people are not interested in the US instigating yet another war in the Middle East. But behind the propaganda and the rhetoric lies the reality that the US will be supporting a war against Iran every inch of the way once the appropriate circumstances arise and Israel makes its first strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities. The strike will be the signal for the US to launch a devastating blitzkrieg against Iranian military, governmental and institutional targets right across Iran.

The attack will be not a prelude to an invasion and occupation as in Iraq, but rather to force the Iranian government to capitulate to US and NATO demands for the Iranian government to hand over power to Iranian dissidents approved by the US and their Western allies; in other words it is about regime change – which, of course, it has always ever been about. It has never been about Irans so-called ‘nuclear weapons program’.

There are many reasons why Israel could not possibly launch a truly unilateral attack against Iran. The main reason is simply one of logistics. Israel operates American aircraft which require spare parts that mostly come from the US. They also require entire engine replacements which come from the US. In the event of launching an attack against Iran, Israel will require massive amounts of military jet fuel which only the US supplies.

Israel will need to overfly at least two countries in order to get to Iran. This will require the clout of the US to establish permissions. Over one or the other of those countries Israel will need to have refuelling aircraft standing by to refuel the strike aircraft since they will be unable to fly the round trip without refuelling.

All this, and much more, means that, at the very least, the US will be very much aware well in advance that Israel is preparing to launch an attack. The US could never say that an Israeli attack was a surprise to them.

The US would also be very much aware that Israel will launch a full-on ‘pre-emptive’ attacks and then invasions against Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in the Gaza Strip. It’s also likely that Israel will fully occupy the West Bank militarily. (The US is aware of this because they have already supplied all the military diesel fuel required for Israel to launch ground operations.) All this will happen simultaneously while the US is finishing off what the Israelis started in Iran.

Rather than coming as any surprise to the US and announced as a unilateral strike against Iran by Israel, the entire scenario is actually a carefully and thoroughly planned war against all of Israel’s enemies and designed specifically to both create conditions that will lead to the Zionist’s dream of a Greater Israel while at the same time destroying a threat to US hegemony in the Middle East and beyond into Central Asia and South East Asia and China for the long term.