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.

Wednesday, September 24, 2014


While the forerunners and later derivative groups of what is now ISIS, or IS as they now prefer to call themselves, were busy fighting Israel’s enemy in Syria, Israel and the US together with their Western allies were content to let the al-Assad regime forces and the Islamists slug it out between them. Both sides remain, however, the enemy of Israel. But, as the civil war in Syria progressed, so the various Islamist forces ranged against al-Assad began to coalesce. Though still not quite fully united, the group that now calls itself the Islamic State has emerged by far the most influential. It has grown almost exponentially over the last twelve months or so and has now spread itself into Iraq where it has become a regional threat as it continues to collect more and more fighters both locally and from overseas.

But its growth has now reached a tipping point. Not only is it a threat to the already unstable politics of Iraq as the movement expands eastward out of Syria into Iraq, but it has now also become a threat to Israel as Israel and its Western allies begin to realise that IS hasn’t taken its eye off the ball in western Syria where it borders with the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights.

So far the Islamists that have flocked to the so-called ‘Islamic State’ forces have been busy consolidating their forces in the territories they now occupy where they are using local recruits to slowly expand holdings in order to build and establish their ‘caliphate’.

However, in western Syria the IS are now also beginning to become influential and the Israeli fear of having them on their border has startled the Israeli government and, just to assure IS that Israel is still a potent force, Israeli yesterday demonstrated its potency by shooting down a Syrian jet strike aircraft when it strayed over the border into Golan Heights airspace on the very same day that the US and their allies attacked IS targets in Syria. With the US attacking IS and Israel demonstrating there is no let up in its desire to see al-Assad gone, it’s clear that Israel remains intent on not allowing the polarising of forces fighting each other in Syria to influence its own long term strategic goals of defeating both the so-called ‘Islamist’ extremists on one side and al-Assad and his allies Hezbollah and Iran on the other.

It’s also clear that Israel and the US, together with their allies, have colluded with each other to define a strategy to defeat a direct threat to Israel without letting it be seen that the West and its allies are taking the battle to the IS in Syria in order to protect Israel. It could very well be the reason why Netanyahu called a sudden halt to the onslaught against the Gaza Strip at a time just when his extreme right-wing partners in his government were calling for the complete occupation of the Gaza Strip and the destruction of Hamas.

As the ceasefire in the Gaza was announced almost unilaterally by Netanyahu there was barely a murmur of protest from the extreme right-wing. Something clearly had upset Netanyahu’s plans for the Gaza Strip. Could it have been the growing threat of the IS potentially coming to Israel’s doorstep in the Golan Heights? It certainly seems that way.

Friday, September 19, 2014


According to this Guardian report Abbott has ‘played down the possibility that Australia’s renewed involvement in Iraq would increase the chance of terror plots against Australian targets. He said Australia was targeted in Bali in 2002 before any involvement in the previous Iraq war’.

This is utter nonsense. All Abbott is attempting here is to mimic John Howard’s ridiculous attempt to hoodwink the Australian people over the reasons for the Bali bombings.

Today’s terror threats – if, indeed, there really are any – are as a direct result of this government’s plans to send Australian forces to Islamic lands for the purpose of killing so-called ‘Islamic’ militants. And, while the Bali bombings did happen some six months before Howard joined the US in invading and destroying Iraq in March 2003, the bombings occurred because the Indonesian militants that were responsible for the bombings knew, just like all Australians knew, that, despite all of Howards worthless denials at the time about not having made a decision about going to Iraq, that there was never any doubt that he would. Howard used the Bali bombings for his own political purposes and may even have manipulated circumstances to have allowed the outrage to occur.

For Abbott to infer that the present threat level isn’t as a response to Abbott’s plans to enjoin the US in their fight against so-called ‘Islamist’ militants is downright garbage. And, in light of the way Howard used the Bali bombings to suit his political agenda, one has to wonder to what extent threats today in Australia haven’t been contrived to suit Abbott’s political agenda.

Wednesday, September 17, 2014


Last month I suggested that Australian SAS forces were already in Iraq. I suggested this based on the assertion by an American neoconservative writers indiscreet wording in an article that said, “Western commandos such as Seal Team Six, Delta Force and the British and Australian SAS should also expand operations to carry out the kind of intelligence-driven leadership targeting that was an important part of the 2007-2008 surge”. The use of the word ‘expand’ and the tone of the narrative hinted that Australian SAS, together with other Special Forces, were already deployed to the region.

Today, Mark Kenny, the Sydney Morning Herald’s chief political editor writes: “While a contingent of SAS commandos departed for the Middle East on Monday, Fairfax Media understands several SAS commandos have been in the region on standby for weeks.” What ‘standby’ means is anybody’s guess but I can’t imagine for one moment that they’ve been idle but, regardless of whatever they have been up to, their presence earlier on and long before any formal announcements made by Abbott regarding Australia’s involvement in the region indicates that Abbott had committed Australia to enjoin the US long before there was any debate on the matter.

Kenny also goes on to write: “Mr Abbott said the fact that the legitimate government of Iraq had invited Australia to assist in defeating an insurgent force, made Australia's participation in the air and ground war legal”. While Abbott concedes there are legal problems associated with operating with allies inside Syria, he doesn’t rule entirely rule out the possibility saying, “I’m not ruling some action is Syria but it is not part of the government current intentions because, as I’ve said quite frequently over the past few days, the legalities of operations in Syria are quite different from the legalities of operations in Iraq”. However, when he was telling Australians and the parliament a few weeks ago that he’d made no decision about Australia becoming involved in Iraq, it’s obvious that he clearly had already decided what Australia’s role would be in Iraq. Why, then should he be believed when he says that going into Syria is not part of the Australian government’s intentions? And can we not question weather or not Australian SAS forces aren’t already in Syria as well as Iraq?

Thursday, September 11, 2014


The Dutch Safety Board has released a preliminary report of the shootdown of Malaysian Airline flight MH17 on 17 July 2014. The report states that the cockpit area of the Boeing 777 airliner was hit with “a large number of high energy objects”. The report does not identify nor speculate what these objects were. However, a close examination of evidence available on the internet, including photographs of the wreckage coupled with information from the preliminary report, all but confirms that the aircraft was shot down by another aircraft using rapid fire machine cannon of some 30mm calibre. This contradicts earlier speculation that the aircraft was downed by a surface to air missile (SAM). 

Some experts who have said the airliner was brought down by a SAM have pointed out that the BUK anti-aircraft missile system is a radar guided weapon that can be fitted with a proximity fuse that detonates the warhead as the missile closes in on its target. While the BUK missile system does indeed have this capability, it does not account for the uniform size of the round holes that are shown on the cockpit skin debris which are consistent with 30mm diameter cannon shells. The BUK system warhead is a conventional fragmentation high explosive device that would have peppered the target with irregular sized and jagged holes and not the round holes that can clearly be seen in the films and photographs of the wreckage.

Some earlier reports suggested that a Ukrainian Sukhoi Su25 may have been responsible for the shootdown. This scenario was refuted by the Ukrainian government and its Western allies who argued that the Su25 was incapable of reaching the 33,000 feet altitude that MH17 was cruising at. Wikipedia’s article on the Su25 states that the service ceiling at best for this aircraft is just under 23,000 feet. However, the authoritative Military Today website states that the SU25’s service ceiling is 10kms which, oddly, is almost 33,000 feet. The upshot is that it is well within the realms of reality for the Su25 to have shot down MH17.

The next consideration is; why was the airliner shot down? It is generally agreed that, regardless of who was responsible for shooting it down, it almost certainly was a tragic case of misidentification. Once realised it was a terrible mistake, every effort was made by whoever did it to cover up their responsibility with all sides then blaming each other for the deed.

The Ukrainian-Russian separatists who have been widely blamed for the shootdown certainly have had a recent history of shooting down Ukrainian military aircraft and helicopters but there is no explanation from the Ukrainians or their Western allies as to why separatists would have shot it down apart from the possibility that the separatists mistook it for a Ukrainian troop transport. But then why would the separatists assume that when the aircraft was flying high over the disputed area of the eastern Ukraine and heading toward Russia. The separatists would have had no reason to assume it was a Ukrainian aircraft. The Russians certainly wouldn’t have shot down a civilian aircraft no matter where it was from. The Ukrainians too would not have shot down any aircraft flying in that direction and at that height even if they believed it was carrying the Russian president Vladimir Putin – or at least the Ukrainian government wouldn’t have attempted to shoot down the Russian president. But what about the Ukrainian ultra-nationalist neo-Nazis in the military? Would they have unilaterally attempted it or even committed the crime with an understanding from the government that they would be disowned and the government’s role in the affair denied if they were caught out?

The Russians, no matter how much the West is trying to stir things up against them, would never have left themselves exposed to such a heinous crime. Nor would the Russian separatists, who have no access to the Ukraine Air Force’s Su25’s, have any reason to shoot down any aircraft under these particular circumstances. That leaves only the Ukrainian nationalists. And, since the US and Europe are their allies, there’s no reason for them to dig too deeply either. 

Tuesday, September 02, 2014


Neoconservative propagandist and Israeli apologist, Jonathan Tobin writing in Commentary yesterday, attempted to justify Israel’s latest grab of some 400 hectares of West Bank land. Tobin attempts justify the grab by saying that the land in question is ‘state land’ adjacent to one of Israel’s earliest settlements in the West Bank which was built after the 1967 war. He argues that in the event of Palestine being given statehood, the land and the settlement would become a part of Israel under an arrangement whereby Israel accede some other lands to Palestine in exchange.

There’s a number of problems with this piece nonsense, not least of which is the fact that Israel and the ultra right-wing Zionists have no intention of ever allowing the Palestinians to have a state of their own and therefore there will never be any kind ‘land swap’.

Tobin goes on to write:

Let’s be clear about this. Neither the ownership nor the future of Gush Etzion is up for debate in any peace talks. In every peace plan, whether put forward by Israel’s government or its left-wing opponents, the bloc remains part of Israel, a reality that most sensible Palestinians accept.

Tobin and his fellow Zionists both in Israel and throughout the world might be in for a rather rude awakening sooner or later at some time in the future.

It is very presumptuous to believe that the Palestinians will accept anything other than full control of all of the West Bank including removal of all of the settlements and a return of all of their lands swallowed up by the meandering Israeli ‘security’ wall and fence.

Israel is beginning to realise that worldwide support for the Palestinian cause is growing rapidly and at the expense of support for Israel. People around the world can now see through Israel’s lies and propaganda. The recent wars against the Palestinian people in the Gaza Strip and Israel’s oppression of Palestinians in the West Bank has shown the world that that real ‘terrorists’ all along have been the Israelis with their relentless bombardment and killings of civilians of the Gaza Strip and their shootings of Palestinian protestors in the West Bank. Israel’s credibility is crumbling rapidly and, in the end, it’s likely to be the demands of the peoples of the world that will ultimately allow the Palestinians to prevail in their quest for statehood – without conceding any of their lands to the Israelis.