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, October 25, 2013


Israel National News (Arutz Sheva) today quoted US so-called nuclear expert David Albright as having stated that Iran could have a nuclear bomb ready ‘within a month’.

This is the same David Albright who I have written about before detailing his fearmongering nonsense after having made similar claims for years. I won’t bother repeating it. You can find it here.


In a recent interview with Australia’s newly elected Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, Australian journalist Andrew Bolt displayed the extent of his well-known racism when the discussion turned to Australia’s indigenous people. It went thus:

AB: I assume you believe all Australians should be treated equally on the grounds of race and ethnic origin.

PM: Yes.

AB: Why do you then want the Constitution rewritten so that some Australians are given different status on the grounds of their racial ancestry?

PM: Well, that's not I want [sic]. I want to appropriately acknowledge indigenous people in the Constitution. Now, that doesn't necessarily mean that we have two classes of Australian citizens, and any proposed amendment that did in effect create two classes of citizens wouldn't be put forward by me, and would deserve to fail if it was.

AB: But dividing people by race …

PM: Yeah, but you're assuming that anything along these lines will divide people by race.

AB: Yes, I do.

PM: Well, I don't accept that this is mission impossible.

The words ‘racist’ and ‘racism’ have been universally accepted as being derogatory in the sense that the words are usually used to convey a negative perception of a person or a persons attitude to people of a different race, culture or religion. A racist is a person of one race who, for whatever reason, hates people of another race simply on the basis that those other people are of a different race. The hatred is usually accompanied by, or more usually caused by, an innate fear of the other and/or a sense of superiority over the other. That sense of superiority usually revolves around sense of cultural superiority and/or differences in physical appearance which to the racist denotes both cultural and physical superiority.

What Bolt attempts to do is deny his racism while at the same time promote it and, in order to achieve this, he has developed a rhetoric that tries to ‘invert’ his racism. He does this by insisting that, if we recognise the differences in other people’s cultures, religion, heritage and physical appearance, then that in itself is racism. In other words, recognising the positive aspects of people of different colour, religion, culture or heritage is to Bolt as much racism as the more usual negative characteristics that we think of when considering and using the words ‘racist’ and ‘racism’.

Where Bolt’s attempts to hoodwink us fails is in what he offers as an alternative – and it is this that betrays his racism.

What Bolt says he wants is for all Australians to be treated equally. The problem here, however, is what Bolt wants to set as the standard by which equality is attained – and that for Bolt is a white Anglo-European-Judea-Christian dominated Western orientated monocultural society which others, if they must be here, are expected to adopt and assimilate into leaving their own cultures and religions behind. Bolt insists that ‘they’ become like ‘us’ and that they not be allowed to integrate ‘their’ culture and religion into ‘ours’.

Bolt wants to deny Australia’s Indigenous people their right to recognition as Australia’s first people in a future revised constitution. He supports the crackpot ideas of Keith Windschuttle who denies the ‘stolen generations’ and denies that widespread massacres and ethnic cleansing of Aboriginal people by white settlers occurred during colonisation.

Bolt is the quintessential Australian racist; he denies that he is a racist and accuses anyone that attempts to recognise the attributes of the culture, heritage and religion of others as being racist against white Anglo-European-Judea-Christians who want a Western orientated monocultural nation.

The very idea of a multicultural, multiracial society that recognises the virtues of the culture, heritage and religion of different races co-existing in our nation is a complete anathema to Andrew Bolt.

Thursday, October 24, 2013


Further to my last post wondering if Israel might launch a pre-emptive unilateral attack against Iran before the gulf between Israel and the US over Iran’s nuclear program gets to a point of no return, it should be pointed out – as some commentators have – that there is unlikely to be any attack against Iran while the current round of talks between Iran and the so-called P5+1 alliance are still underway. Talks are scheduled to restart on 10 November 2013 after a break that allows the parties to consider their next moves.

Once the talks are over, however, if the outcome of the talks hasn’t satisfied Netanyahu who is demanding that Iran dismantles all of its nuclear facilities, then he might feel that this maybe the only opportunity he’ll have to attack Iran with any hope of the US, no matter how reluctantly, getting on board to help the Israelis in their fight against Iran. Netanyahu may take a chance and attack in the hope that Obama will consider it fait accompli and be left with no option other than to support Israel by launching its own attacks against Iran.

However, if as an outcome of the talks Obama expresses satisfaction with whatever deal they come up with about Iran’s nuclear program and then states that as far as the US is concerned, provided Iran keeps to its end of the deal, the crisis is over, then it’s all over for Netanyahu too – which means Netanyahu will have to act quickly after the talks are concluded if he wants the US to help Israel fight Iran.

Tuesday, October 22, 2013


Relations between Israel and the US, according to some observers, are deteriorating rapidly as the US talks with the Iranians over Iran’s nuclear program seem to be gaining ground.

Netanyahu has been trying to convince the world that the new president of Iran’s fresh and non-confronting approach to the West over sanctions and Iran’s nuclear program are just about buying time which Iran is using to build a nuclear bomb that Netanyahu says will be launched at Israel just as soon as it’s ready.

Netanyahu maintains that he will strike Iran unilaterally if he felt that Iran was getting close to building a bomb. This has put the US on edge and a little worried that Netanyahu may lose patience and go ahead with a unilateral strike against Iran.

I have for years argued that any such strike by Israel against Iran could not possibly be wholly ‘unilateral’ and that there must be some level of connivance with the US before such a strike could be carried out. However, Israel may feel they are able to risk launching an initial unilateral attack against Iran in the hope that, after launching such an attack, the US would feel obligated – no matter how begrudgingly – to immediately come to Israel’s aid. It is now getting to the point where Israel may feel that, if they leave it any longer, the divide between them and the US may be so wide that such help from the US may not be forthcoming.

Obama has, despite his coolness to Netanyahu of late, said that he has ‘Israel’s back’. Short of actually announcing that the US will not come to Israel’s aid if Israel attacks Iran unilaterally, the US would, I believe, nonetheless go into bat for the Israelis after the Israelis launched the initial strike. Certainly, the US already has its military in place in the Persian Gulf for just such an operation.

It should be made clear though, that once a strike is launched, there will be no turning back. It will not simply be a strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities; it will be in pursuit of nothing less than regime change. And that will be achieved without invasion and by use strategic bombing until Iran capitulates.

Netanyahu is becoming desperate. He believes that it is his destiny to create the Greater Israel he has always dreamed of – and war against Iran is the only way he will ever be able to achieve that.

Friday, October 04, 2013


While anything that anyone does to ease the burden of refugees or at risk if they remain where they are can be nothing but helpful, it’s difficult to applaud such actions when one knows that it is being done for such blatantly transparent ulterior motives.

Yesterday the Abbott government announced that 500 Syrian refugees currently being handled by the UNHCR will be settled in Australia. Today the Abbott government also announced that some 800 Afghans who had worked for the allies in Afghanistan will also be offered places in Australia. All of these people, however, are being admitted into Australia not as part of some special extra humanitarian allocation, but as part of the existing already reduced allocation of 13,750 – reduced, that is, from 20,000 places.

So, while the number of refugees across the planet is drastically increasing – due mainly to wars started or supported by the West, including Australia – Australia is actually reducing its commitment to the refugee problem. But in order to make it look good for the government the Immigration Department is making a song and dance about helping the Syrian refugees and Afghan asylum seekers and they are going to great pains to tell Australians that these people are coming in through ‘legal’ channels while those that attempt to arrive by boat are, as Immigration Minister Scott Morrison refers to them; ‘illegal’ and will never be allowed to settle in Australia.

It’s quite clear that Morrison is using the plight of one set of people to demonise the plight of others who the government has developed, it would seem, nothing but contempt for. No doubt when the folk around the world talk of the way Australia treats its refugees, the Abbott government will be responding loudly and clearly by saying how good they are by helping just 1300 refugees and asylum seekers. That, they hope, will detract from the reality of Australia’s cruelty to boatpeople.

Thursday, October 03, 2013


Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, in the light of US President Obama’s much softened stance on Iran, has recently been quietly entertaining guests from some Arab states that are concerned about the rise of Iran’s growing regional hegemony. While none of these countries have diplomatic relations with Israel, all share an interest in diluting Iran’s influence.

In his speech to the United Nations General Assembly recently Netanyahu stated that he was prepared to act alone against Iran in order to ‘prevent Iran building a nuclear weapon’. While President Obama is reluctant to take America to war again by attacking Iran, he has on several occasions suggested that Israel must do as it sees fit in its own defence and, furthermore, has said that he supports Israel’s right to defend itself. Obama has also said the ‘US will always have Israel’s back’, a promise, no matter what the circumstances, he is unlikely to back away from if push really came to shove.

Even though in public Obama, for domestic political reasons, seems to be far more desirous of a diplomatic solution than a military one with regards to Iran’s nuclear program, he would not hesitate to back Israel if it decided to take the unilateral route to attacking Iran though, of course, for the sake of public opinion, Obama would appear to do so reluctantly. However, as I have explained before, any action that Israel takes against Iran can never be truly unilateral; it must, at the very least, rely on US connivance and, just as importantly, US preparedness in the event of Iranian retaliation.

Despite Obama appearing to hold out hope for a diplomatic solution to what America’s intelligence agencies see as a non-problem, it should be remembered that behind Obama’s olive branch is a massive US military presence in both the Persian Gulf near Iran and in the eastern Mediterranean close to Lebanon, Syria and Israel ready to pounce to Israel’s defence at the first sign of an Iranian retaliation.

But before Israel goes off to attack Iran, while it knows it will have Obama’s backing, albeit discreetly, Netanyahu must also know where Iran’s neighbours stand – hence the talks with emissaries from Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Qatar and elsewhere.

Tuesday, October 01, 2013


There is just one of two scenarios that can be deduced from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s obsessive stance on Iran: he either genuinely believes that Iran wants to build a nuclear weapon specifically to launch at Israel or he has some ulterior motive for wanting the US to attack Iran.

An examination of the two scenarios makes it clear that of the two, the second is far more plausible.

For decades Netanyahu, his political supporters in Israel and their neoconservative supporters in the US and elsewhere around the world have insisted that Iran has a nuclear weapons program and that it is only ‘months away’ from being able to build a bomb. Furthermore, not only do they insist that Iran has a nuclear weapons program, but also that once Iran has the bomb, they will use it against Israel.

Despite their insistence, however, various US National Intelligence Estimates failed to confirm their belief that Iran was on the way to building a bomb. Indeed, not one skerrick of hard evidence has ever been produced to categorically confirm that Iran has a nuclear weapons program. But that didn’t stop the Israelis and their neoconservative supporters from continuing their propaganda about Iran’s ‘nuclear program’.

Nowhere in their propaganda is there any attempt to provide a rationale for their paranoia other than to claim – quite erroneously – that ex-Iranian president Ahmadinejad wanted to somehow ‘wipe Israel off the map’. Nor is there any explanation as to how exactly Iran would launch a nuclear attack against Israel given Israel’s proximity to Arab land and the fact that 20% of Israel’s population are the very Arabs that Iran are supporting. Ignored entirely by the Israeli Zionists and their supporters is how they thought Iran might avoid a retaliatory nuclear strike launched by a nuclear armed Israel and/or by their allies, most of who also bristle with nuclear arms. In short, none of their claims and arguments supporting their claims has any basis in reality or even logic.

One can only conclude then that there is some ulterior motive behind their vehement insistence that Iran be attacked. Regular readers know already what that motive is; others may find it here.

Later today Netanyahu will address the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA). Undoubtedly, his main topic is going to be Iran and it’s supposed ‘nuclear weapons program’ with an emphasis on how the new Iranian president Hassan Rouhani is trying to pull the wool over the West’s eyes about Iran’s nuclear program.

Netanyahu has already had private talks with President Obama and Obama has already reassured Netanyahu that all options, including the military option, remain on the table. What Netanyahu says in his upcoming speech to the UNGA may provide some insight as to how he is likely to progress to his ultimate goal of a final confrontation with Iran.