WAR AGAINST IRAN: EX-SHIN BET BOSS EXPOSES NETANYAHU AND BARAK’S REAL PLANS FOR ISRAEL

The UK Guardian reported today that Yuval Diskin, the former chief of Israel’s internal security organisation, Shin Bet, said that:

…the prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, and defence minister, Ehud Barak – the principal advocates of military action against Iran's nuclear programme – were unfit to lead the country and could not be trusted to conduct a war. The "messianic" pair were misleading the public on the merits of an attack.

The Guardian went on to report that:

The former Shin Bet chief did not confine his comments to Iran. On peace negotiations with the Palestinians, he said: "Forget all about the stories they're selling you in the media about how we want to talk but [Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas] doesn't, and so forth. I'm telling you, we're not talking with the Palestinians because this government has no interest in talking with the Palestinians … I know from up close what is going on in that area”.

Diskin presented the Iran issue and the Palestinian issue as though they were two separate issues that needed to be dealt with but which he considered were being handled badly by Netanyahu and Barak.

The reality, however, is that the two issues are very much related to each other; indeed, the extreme right-wing Zionist obsession with Iran is because the Zionists real determination is to not only never allow the Palestinian people to ever have a state of their own, but to occupy and eventually annex the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and southern Lebanon up to the Litani River. Together with the Golan Heights, which they have already annexed after taking it from Syria, they hope to realise their long held dream of creating a Greater Israel. Iran comes into the picture because it is Iran that supports the two organisations, Hamas and Hezbollah, which are preventing the Greater Israel Zionists from realising their dream.

While the Israeli’s know that the world will not tolerate Israel simply marching in and taking what they want, the Greater Israel Zionists believe that if war breaks out between Israel and Iran on the pretext that Iran is a threat to Israel, then such a war would could also provide the pretext for Israel to invade and occupy the Gaza, West Bank and south Lebanon telling the world that it was necessary in order to prevent Hamas and Hezbollah retaliating against Israel for Israel’s attack against Iran.

Netanyahu is now under massive pressure. He and Barak are reliant on the US in their war against Iran. While Israel will fire the opening shots against Iran, it will need the US to finish the job on Iran while Israel deals with Hamas and Hezbollah. As the US elections approach, the timing of a war against Iran becomes critical. The fact that Israeli elections may take place at around the same time as the US elections makes the timing even more critical.

And now, with internal pressures dominating headlines in Israel, Netanyahu and Barak’s hands may be forced to take the ultimate step while in the US, Obama, under electoral pressure from the Republicans and the American right-wing and neoconservatives that support the Greater Israel Zionists, may feel obliged to take a punt knowing that a successful war against Iran will ensure him a second term.

Factors operating against this scenario which may prevent war are: Obama may resist pressure from Israel to instigate a war against Iran if opinion polls favour him right up to the election and if he knows that he is going to get over the line reasonably comfortably. That, coupled with internal pressures in Israel against Netanyahu and Barak’s push for war, may well tip the balance to avoid war.

The world can only hope that sensible heads prevail.

FOR AUSTRALIAN READERS…

The latest news on Australia’s most notorious racist, Andrew Bolt, is here.

WAR AGAINST IRAN: THE TIMING OF POSSIBLE ISREALI ELECTIONS ARE A WORRY

The headline in Ha’aretz today is cause for concern. Apparently Likud Party sources have said that a general election is likely to be held between September and November – at just the time the US presidential race is heading down the final straight and a champing at the bit Mitt Romney is keen to see Netanyahu get past the post in Israel.

As usual with Israeli politics, the stated reasons for an early election are varied and complex depending on which Israeli newspaper one reads. However, whatever the reason for an election, the timing of it should be of great concern to both the US and Iran by simple virtue of the fact that Netanyahu would be almost assured of a landslide victory if, prior to the election, Israel launched an initial attack against Iran which Obama could then follow up on leaving Israel to attack and destroy Hamas in the Gaza Strip and Hezbollah in Lebanon. The destruction of Israel’s enemies would bring glory to Netanyahu and sweeping victory at the polls for the Likud and the right-wing Zionist parties of Israel while regime change in Iran as a result of a massive follow-up bombing attack against Iran by the US would bring certain victory for Obama.

On the other hand, the failure by Netanyahu to bring the confrontation against Iran to a head by election time will almost certainly cost him his office – and with it will go any future opportunity for him to realise his goal of creating a Greater Israel. For Obama, war against Iran would be better fought after the next US presidential election when he has nothing to lose. However, if Netanyahu forces Obama’s hand by insisting on confronting Iran, Obama will throw every ounce of US muscle into the fight to ensure not just that Iran is deprived of its so-called ‘nuclear weapons program’, but that there is ‘regime change’ in Iran.   

WAR AGAINST IRAN: MARCO RUBIO AND THE PRETENTIOUSNESS OF AMERICAN EXCEPTIONALISM

Despite the failures of neoconservative-inspired American ventures into Afghanistan and Iraq, it should, nonetheless, come as no surprise to hear that neoconservative Marco Rubio, who could possibly become America’s next Vice-President, still believes in American exceptionalism and the right of the US to dominate and lead the world.

Yesterday, Rubio, addressing a meeting at the Brookings Institution in Washington, DC, finished his frightening foreign policy address by telling his audience:

Why does it have to start with us, some say. Why do we have to do it? We find our answer in the words of a non-American. In an address to Congress in 2003, British Prime Minister Tony Blair said:

“I know it's hard on America. And in some small corner of this vast country, out in Nevada or Idaho or these places I've never been to but always wanted to go -- I know out there, there's a guy getting on with his life, perfectly happily, minding his own business, saying to you, the political leaders of this country, ‘Why me, and why us, and why America?’ And the only answer is because destiny put you in this place in history in this moment in time, and the task is yours to do.”

And so it is. For this new century is a time of tremendous challenges. But it is also a time of tremendous promise. This is indeed the world America made. It is freer and more prosperous than it has ever been.

But it can be even better. As Americans we can’t make that happen by ourselves. But the world cannot make it happen without us.

His words sum up the neoconservative’s vision of a New American Century first proffered to the world in 1997.

So, why do I say ‘frightening’?

It’s frightening simply because the neocons seem not to have learnt a thing since the disasters of Afghanistan and Iraq. Read the text of Rubio’s speech; all the rhetoric by neoconservatives that led to the destruction of Iraq is repeated again against Iran. But this time there’s more. Lurking in the background of Rubio’s foreign policy speech is the looming threat of China’s challenge to America’s dominance as a so-called ‘superpower’. Rubio wants China to be like America and until it does become like America, it will forever be a threat to America.

The world must reject the arrogance of America’s neoconservatives. The myth of ‘American exceptionalism’ should be exposed. Only they and their supporters in the West can truly believe that the wreck that is America today is actually Exceptional and that the world should want to emulate it.

I doubt anything will alter the fact that Iran will eventually be attacked by the US and Israel, but if the Republicans get their man Romney and his probable off-sider Marco Rubio into the White House, then any doubts that remain will be gone.    

NEOCONS AND THE BREIVIK AFFAIR

There’s an interesting piece in the National Review Online today by neocon writer John O’Sullivan.

Clearly, neoconservatives around the world have a serious image problem as a direct result of the deeds of Norwegian mass murderer Anders Breivik on account of the neocons and Breivik having exactly the same political ideology. Now that Breivik is on trial, his motives are becoming even more exposed than when those terrible events happened back in July of last year. Because it was such an horrific event, the commentary that attempted to answer the question of ‘why’ it happened got a little lost as we tried desperately to find out ‘how’ it happened. But, now the trial of Breivik has begun and it’s becoming clearer every day that Breivik is nothing more than an extremist ultra-violent Islam-hating neoconservative, neoconservatives around the word are having to put as much distance between themselves and Breivik as they possibly can. In order to do this, neoconservatives need to utterly condemn Breivik’s deeds to the extreme. And John O’Sullivan is doing just that by inferring that Norway should reintroduce the death penalty.

Leaving aside the fact that neoconservatives would simply like to see the problem go away, and executing Breivik, so they hope, would achieve that, O’Sullivan’s piece also exposes a lot about the neoconservative mindset.

First, there is the pure arrogance displayed in the piece.

Norway is a sovereign state with laws and practices that exclude the use of the death penalty. Norway is also a nation that provides every single person under its jurisdiction an opportunity to the full benefit of their laws no matter who or what they’ve done and does not make exceptions to those laws – especially on the suggestions of American neoconservatives.

Secondly, there is the usual propensity that neocons display – the ‘do as we do’ notion of justice. O’Sullivan actually asks why there should even be a trial at all. Could it be that Norway, unlike the US, would prefer to seek justice rather than revenge against those that commit crimes? Trials not only provide justice, they also often provide an understanding of what went so horribly wrong and, in doing so, may also provide answers in seeking ways to prevent reoccurrence.

And, of course, it’s not just O’Sullivan that’s back-pedalling as fast as possible to put distance between Breivik and the neocons; they’re all at it across the world. Dan Hodges, a Blairite neocon writing in the UKs Daily Telegraph, asks why the Norwegian police didn’t just shoot Breivik on the spot. While Hodges then goes on to explain why they shouldn’t have, one needs to ask why he suggested it in the first place. Hodges then goes on telling his readers how the Norwegians should run their justice system.

And I’ve already written about how Australian neocon, Andrew Bolt, is also trying desperately to put distance between himself and Breivik.  

WAR AGAINST IRAN: CLASSIC EXAMPLE OF THE NEOCON PROPAGANDA MACHINE IN ACTION

An article in Commentary today by neoconservative arch-propagandist Jonathan Tobin demonstrates exactly how the neocon propaganda machine works to influence the political wheels in Washington.

The article is supposedly about a fake fatwa issued by Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei that effectively banned the production of nuclear weapons. Tobin’s fevered argument is that the fatwa was never issued and the rumour that it was is designed to fool the West into giving Iran more time to actually build a nuclear weapon.

Whether or not a fatwa was issued is really beside the point; what’s interesting about Tobin’s rant is the ‘evidence’ he uses to support his argument that the fatwa never existed.

First he refers to this article by fellow neoconservative writer Ruthie Blum writing in Israel Hayom which Tobin links to. Blum’s article, in turn, then links to the notorious neoconservative propaganda think-tank MEMRI.org, which Tobin also links to in his article. The pattern, of course, is that Tobin refers only to a network of other neoconservative individuals and organisations who he presents as credible authorities on these matters.

MEMRI.org was the organisation that deliberately mistranslated and then misrepresented the speech by Iranian President Ahmadinejad in which, so MEMRI.org tells it, he said that ‘Israel must be wiped from the map’. In fact, what Ahmadinejad said was; ‘this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time’; something completely different. But the propagandists are sticking with the ‘Iran said it will wipe Israel off the map’ meme because it fits in nicely with the ‘Iran has a nuclear weapons program’ meme with which they are telling the world Iran will use to ‘wipe Israel off the map’.

The ‘fatwa’ nonsense is just another piece of neoconservative garbage emanating from their recycle bin of propaganda. They just hope that no one goes rummaging around in their bin of lies to find that most of it comes from the same source – themselves! 

ANDERS BREIVIK AND ANDREW BOLT: THE SWORD AND THE PEN OF KINDRED SPIRITS

At his blog today Andrew Bolt tried desperately to spin his way out of being put in the same ideological frame as Norwegian mass murderer Anders Breivik.

Bolt writes:

You will remember how eager were many on the Left to use the horrific crimes of Anders Behring Breivik to smear mainstream conservatives.

He then goes on to quote an ABC article as though it was the ABC that was trying to smear ‘mainstream conservatives’. But what the ABC piece actually said was:

Accused Norwegian mass murderer Anders Behring Breivik praised four Australian conservative leaders - including former Prime Minister John Howard - in his 1,500-page manifesto.and:In a manifesto posted online under the Anglicised pseudonym Andrew Berwick, the killer quoted Mr Howard, former treasurer Peter Costello, Catholic Cardinal George Pell and conservative writer and historian Keith Windschuttle.

It wasn’t the ABC smearing ‘mainstream conservatives’, the ABC was merely quoting Breivik himself. What Bolt has actually attempted to do is smear the ABC.

There should be no misunderstanding here – Bolt has no choice but to condemn Breivik for what he has done, but beneath the surface of that condemnation lurks the real Bolt who has exactly the same nationalistic and Islamophobic aspirations as Breivik. But where Breivik had a gun, Bolt has a weapon far more dangerous - he has access to the mainstream media with which to peddle those aspirations.

Bolt is peddling as hard as he can to put ideological distance between himself and Breivik but the more he tries, the more he places himself in the same pigeon-hole.

WAR AGAINST IRAN: NEOCON EXTREMIST BECOMES DELUSIONAL

Neocon commentator David Gelernter writing in The Weekly Standard today is hoping President Obama will attack Iran in order that Israel doesn’t have to. Gelernter writes:

…an American attack would of course be far less dangerous for the world (let alone Israel), because American action to slap down revenge counterattacks will be taken for granted. And clearly an American attack could do greater damage to Iran’s arsenal—and be more likely than an Israeli attack to bring about an Iranian revolution.

Before commenting on his remarks, there are a few one should know about Gelernter.

In 2007 Gelernter published a book titled Americanism: The Fourth Great Western Religion. The title alone should tell you something about his delusional arrogance. In it, Gelernter argues:

The religious idea called “America” is religious insofar as it tells an absolute truth about the meaning of human life, a truth that we must take on faith. (“We hold these truths to be self evident,” says the Declaration of Independence. No proofs are supplied.) I will try to show that the “American Religion”, which gives “America” its spiritual meaning, consists of an American Creed in the context of a doctrine I will call American Zionism.

Gelernter goes onto write:

I will try to show that the American Religion incorporates the biblical ideas of a chosen people in a promised land. Those concepts are the source of America’s (sometime) sense of divine mission; of her (not invariable yet often powerful) feeling of obligation to all of mankind; of her democratic chivalry – her nagging awareness of a duty to help the weak against the strong. This “chivalry” has nothing to do with knights and ladies; it is a deep sense of duty to the suffering, and comes straight from American Zionism.(1)

Clearly, at least in Gelernter’s twisted and delusional mind, not only is Israel the Promised Land but so is America, and the American people, despite the vast majority of them not being Jewish, are part of his Zionist delusions. Once one understands where Gelernter is coming from ideologically, one can readily understand, albeit in an extremely twisted sort of way, why he sees it as being imperative that the US attacks Iran first in order to ‘protect’ Israel.

Apart from his delusional ideology, Gelernter’s inability to understand that an American attack against Iran, far from ‘bringing about an Iranian revolution’, is much more likely to tenaciously unite the people of Iran behind their leaders as they had before when Saddam Hussein attacked them back in the 1980s, is dangerously naïve. The Iranians, despite the propaganda to the contrary, are not a threat at all to the Israelis, but that would soon change, however, if the Americans or the Israelis launch an attack against Iran. There will by no winners of such a war; all will lose.



(1) David Gelernter, Americanism: The Fourth Great Western Religion. (New York: Doubleday, 2007.) pp. 4-5.

WAR AGAINST IRAN: NETANYAHU’S REACTION TO IRAN TALKS; JUST SO PREDICTABLE

Yesterday I wrote of how the Zionists were likely to react to the outcome of the recent talks with Iran over its nuclear program. I said that “they will likely claim that delays and further talks only give more time for the Iranians to produce a nuclear weapon”, and, sure enough, today we have Netanyahu being quoted as saying “that further talks scheduled for May are like a gift for Iran, which give the country more time to continue enriching uranium”.

No reaction yet from the neoconservatives; the people at Commentary seem to have given themselves a break until Monday while the mob over at The Weekly Standard are still trying to pen something about it. Likewise, National Review Online.

But there are no prizes for guessing what their responses are likely to be.

It’s all so predictable.

WAR AGAINST IRAN: ISRAELIS UNLIKELY TO BE HAPPY WITH RESULT OF LATEST TALKS WITH IRAN

With talks between Iran and the US, France, Britain, Russia, China and Germany having just been wound up in Istanbul with an agreement to talk again on 23 May in Baghdad, the Zionists of Israel and their neoconservative supporters are unlikely to be very happy. While the Israeli government has not yet responded to the outcome of the talks, they will likely claim that delays and further talks only give more time for the Iranians to produce a nuclear weapon.

For President Obama, who is trying to put off going to war against Iran before seeing which way the wind is going to blow for him at the upcoming Presidential elections, the outcome is just what he needs. If by around October it looks like he’s going to easily make it back into the White House, then Obama will likely hold off any attack against Iran until after the election. However, if it looks like Romney’s going to get the upper hand or even if it looks like being a very tight race, Obama may well be tempted to quietly invite Israel to initiate an attack against Iran. Then, once the initial strike has been made, an apparently reluctant Obama will become hero of the hour as the US rushes to save Israel from the ravages of Iranian retaliation.

Since Israel, for reasons I have discussed elsewhere, are unable to launch a truly unilateral attack against Iran, Israel will play along with Obama’s game by asserting themselves as being the imminent victims of a certain Iranian nuclear attack just as soon as the Iranians have a weapon ready.

At the moment, the game is being played out as though the US is a calm and collected nation holding back a friend apparently in fear of its life and wanting to strike first before being hit themselves.

But in reality it’s only a game being played for the benefit of public opinion at a time when US politics takes precedent over their friends desire to destroy their enemies.

Sooner or later, though, the ultimate endgame will be played out. Israel will launch an attack against Iran’s nuclear facilities in order to show the world that Iran’s nuclear facilities really is what they fear most, and then the real reason for the confrontation against Iran will be launched; the US will follow up Israel’s initial attack by a massive regime-changing attack against Iran and its defence and governmental defences. Meanwhile, the Israelis will attack Hamas and Hezbollah invading the Gaza Strip and south Lebanon and fully occupying the West Bank with the long-term goal of annexing all of these territories.


FOR AUSTRALIAN READERS…

See the latest news on Andrew Bolt, Australia’s most prolific racist, right here.

WAR AGAINST IRAN: TALKS JUST BUYING TIME FOR OBAMA

Since the desired endgame for both the US and Israel in the stand-off with Iran is not over Iran’s so-called ‘nuclear weapons program’ but, rather, war leading to regime change in Iran and an excuse for Israel to attack and destroy Hamas and Hezbollah, there can be only one reason why talks with Iran have been agreed to; Obama needs more time up his sleeve as the Presidential elections draw closer.

The outcome of any talks is a forgone conclusion; they will end in deadlock. No matter what Iran says or does, it will not be acceptable to the US. There is a certain irony in the fact that, while it is Obama that is stalling for time in the run-up to the elections, it will be Obama who will accuse Iran of stalling for more time in order to complete the construction of a weapon. Just as they did in 2010 when Brazil and Turkey agreed with Iran to broker an enrichment deal that would ensure that Iran never had enough enriched material capable of building a nuclear bomb with, so any agreement reached in these latest talks will eventually end in the Americans walking away from any deal.

This time around the US and their allies have upped the ante. They are no longer demanding that Iran open up their nuclear facilities for inspection but, knowing that Iran is unlikely to concede, they are now demanding that Iran dismantle all of its enrichment facilities.

The long awaited final confrontation with Iran is not a matter of ‘if’, it's just a matter of ‘when’.

WAR AGAINST IRAN: HYPOCRISY AT ITS BEST FROM ELLIOTT ABRAMS

If it wasn’t so serious, you’d have to laugh.

Browsing through the Weekly Standard as I do on a daily basis, this piece by Elliott Abrams jumped out at me. It’s called – and I kid you not – ‘Politicizing Intelligence’. In it, Abrams criticises the Obama administration for using intelligence for political purposes. Abrams main source for his complaint is this quote from the Washington Post:

At a time of renewed debate over whether stopping Iran might require military strikes, the expanded intelligence collection has reinforced the view within the White House that it will have early warning of any move by Iran to assemble a nuclear bomb, officials said.

“There is confidence that we would see activity indicating that a decision had been made,” said a senior U.S. official involved in high-level discussions about Iran policy.

The hypocrisy, of course, is in the fact that Abrams observations are the exact inverse of what neoconservatives were saying about Saddam Hussein and his so-called ‘Weapons of Mass Destruction’, the supposed ‘existence’ of which was highly politicised in order to provide the US and the ‘Coalition of the Willing’ a casus belli to invade and destroy Iraq. Obama’s motivation for ‘politicising the intelligence’ is not so much to get a war against Iran off the ground, but to delay it to a time that suits him rather than Netanyahu and his neocon supporters, including Abrams, who want the war to get going sooner rather than later.

Abrams had no problem politicising false intelligence for George W. Bush in the lead up to the invasion of Iraq but now here he is getting all precious about Obama politicising real intelligence in order not to go to war – at least not until it’s politically expedient for him to do so.

Hypocrisy and arrogance; the values that ‘they’ really hate about ‘us’. Who can blame them?


FOR AUSTRALIAN READERS…
See the latest news on Andrew Bolt, Australia’s most disgusting racist, right here.

WAR AGAINST IRAN: THE U.S., ISRAEL AND THEIR ALLIES SHIFT THE GOAL POSTS MAKING WAR VIRTUALLY INEVITABLE

The US, Israel and their allies have now shifted the nuclear goalposts by demanding that Iran dismantle its latest newly-built underground nuclear facilities at Fordo; that they immediately halt enrichment operations, and that they transfer all of their already 20% enriched nuclear material out of Iran.

Knowing full well that Iran is highly unlikely to concede to any of these demands is proof positive that Israel and the West are fully intent on going to war against Iran regardless of anything the Iranians do.

Yesterday, Iran’s Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi told former Japanese premier Yukio Hatoyama who is visiting Iran, that Iran “is pursuing its right to the peaceful use of nuclear energy and will not ignore this right”.

Like previous ‘talks’ between the West and Iran, the outcome of this latest set of demands are likely to be long drawn out. The end result, however, will be the same. Israel, at some point or another, will launch the initial attack against Iran while the US will follow up with a massive bombardment of Iran’s defences, as well as its military and governmental institutions with a view to force capitulation of the theocratic government leading to ‘regime change’. Meanwhile, Israel, while the world’s attention is focussed on the spectacle of a war launched against Iran, will launch its own full scale attack against Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in the Gaza and Palestinian fighters in the West Bank on the pretext that they are pre-empting a retaliatory attack against Israel by Irans ‘allies’. The whole objective of the wars will be for Israel to not just defeat, but destroy its enemies leaving a pathway clear for occupation and eventual annexation of the lands they want as part of their dream of an Arab free Greater Israel.

The slow-motion march to war has somehow also had the effect of slowing up the pace of world-wide protest against war despite the danger of war now being far less a case of ‘if’ but, rather, of ‘when’.


FOR AUSTRALIAN READERS…
See the latest news on Andrew Bolt, Australia’s most disgusting racist, right here.

ANDREW BOLT'S EMBARASSING FAUX PAS

It was just a little thing but it so classically demonstrated what a deceitful and conceited racist Andrew Bolt really is.

Today Bolt posted a piece about how the use of the English language is being eroded by people who migrate to Australia without having learnt how to write English properly. His motivation for the criticism was the opportunity for him to push his anti-multicultural nonsense as part of his program to peddle the cause of his brand of racism.

In the original post Bolt wrote:

Speaking and writing basic English is, after all, a key to good citizenship, neighborliness and effective integration.
The comment I wrote in response went thus:

For most people, Bolt, the answer to the problem would simply be to learn how to write English as well as speak it.

For you the answer would be not to allow 'foreigners' into Australia unless they're able to write English.

‘Speaking and writing basic English’, Bolt, ‘is not the key to good citizenship, neighborliness and effective integration’; tolerance is.

And, by the way, speaking of writing basic English, Bolt, in Australia we spell ‘neighborliness’ with a ‘u’ in it as in ‘neighbourliness’.
The comment was published.

At least, for a little while it was.

When Bolt discovered his embarrassing faux pas he pulled my comment and corrected his extremely embarrassing post as though nothing had happened.

Orwell’s Ministry of Truth has been at it again.

Fortunately, technology has the upper hand these days in countering such woeful deceit.


NOTE
This post can also be seen here

WAR AGAINST IRAN: HILLARY CLINTON’S BIG LIE

Whilst in Saudi Arabia yesterday, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told a press conference:

With respect to Iran, we had an opportunity to discuss the P-5+1 negotiations – what we expect, what we are intending to present when the meetings begin. We’re going in with one objective: to resolve the international community’s concerns about Iran’s nuclear program. And I had a chance to talk with our friends here about how we are approaching these talks. I also reiterated what the President has said, that our policy is one of prevention, not containment.

This is pure nonsense.

First, if the ‘international community’ have any ‘concerns’ about Iran’s nuclear program, it is only because the ‘international community’ has accepted the propaganda about Iran having a nuclear weapons program and has done so without seeing any hard evidence whatsoever to support these claims.

All of these claims about Iran’s so-called ‘nuclear weapons program’ have originated from the US, Israel and their Western allies. The claims are being believed – or at least supported – by the governments of other nations around the planet that have a vested interest in supporting US foreign policy.

One should also note that the rhetoric has taken a subtle turn in the terminology. As we can see above, Clinton doesn’t actually mention ‘Iran’s nuclear weapons program’; it’s simply referred to as ‘Iran’s nuclear program’ as she now relies on presumptive inference to allow her audience to assume she’s talking about a nuclear weapons program. It seems that earlier references in the rhetoric about a ‘nuclear weapons program’ have done its job and the presumption is now firmly planted in our minds. The reality, of course is; Iran has never denied that it has a nuclear program. It has, however, always denied having a nuclear weapons program and has always insisted that its nuclear program is solely in pursuit of peaceful uses such as power generation and the production of isotopes for cancer treatment.

Secondly, when Hillary Clinton says, “We’re going in with one objective”; it most definitely isn’t to “resolve the international community’s concerns about Iran’s nuclear program”. The real objective is simple; regime change in Iran through war and to provide an excuse for Israel to attack Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank.

The fact the US are far more interested in pushing for war is illustrated by Clintons reiteration of US policy as far as Iran’s nuclear program is concerned which is ‘prevention, not containment’. If Clinton isn’t interested in ‘containing’ Iran’s nuclear program then, it seems, they will be preventing it – even if the nuclear program is for peaceful purposes only.

Clearly, one way or the other, the US, Israel and their Western allies are not interested in listening to Iran’s claims that their nuclear program is for peaceful purposes only and war for Israel is the real is the ‘one objective they’re going in for’.


UPDATE

This interesting piece in The New York Times today illustrates how the ‘Iran has a nuclear weapons program’ meme is juxta-positioned with the ‘Saddam has WMD’s’ rhetoric in the run to the invasion and destruction of Iraq. It shows how the intelligence community are struggling to come to terms with the nonsense over the Iraq intelligence failures yet still maintain their professional dignity in the face of political pressures to repeat those failures within the Iran context

What’s particularly interesting about this piece is how ultra-neocon John R. Bolton concedes that, “The intelligence analysts I’ve dealt with have always been willing to engage in debates on their conclusions, but there is top-down pressure to make the assessments come out a certain way”.

And isn’t that what’s happening now?

WAR AGAINST IRAN: NEOCONS WORRIED ORDINARY ISRAELIS DON’T WANT WAR

Last week’s demonstrations in Israel against a war with Iran seems to have caught the attention of the neocons – and they have clearly got them rattled, indeed, rattled enough to make comment on it in their front line journal.

There were two aspects of the demonstration that the neocons found objectionable – apart, of course, from the fact that the demonstration took place at all. Firstly, they really didn’t like the theme of the demonstrations which wasn’t just ‘no war’, but ‘no war against the people of Iran’. That was compounded by the fact that many of the Israeli demonstrators were even (horror upon horrors!) actually expressing love for the Iranian people. This was too much for the neocons that were compelled to write in Commentary an article titled Love for Iran Takes Ayatollahs off the Hook. Leor Sapir, the author of this particular article, didn’t mention how ordinary Iranians participated in the demonstrations by use of the internet social media of YouTube, Facebook and Twitter, though I find it hard to believe that he wouldn’t have known about it. One can only assume that he didn’t want to be responsible for giving those that hadn’t actually heard about the social media’s use any ideas about using it in future anti-war demonstrations.

Sapir then rants on about how the demonstrators called for Netanyahu's resignation over his warmongering calls to attack Iran. Sapir then makes a most extraordinary statement even by neocon standards. He writes:

Most pundits would agree that Iran’s nuclear program has little, if anything, to do with Israel, even though a nuclear Iran would certainly make the region more unstable and dangerous for the Jewish state.

In a way, of course, Sapir is right; Iran’s nuclear program has got nothing at all to with Israel. But then, one has to ask oneself, if that’s the case, why is Netanyahu calling for the destruction of Iran’s nuclear facilities? Clearly, as far as the right-wing Zionists and their neocon supporters are concerned, Iran’s nuclear program has everything to do with Israel, in which case, why should it not be of interest to those Israelis that oppose war against Iran?

As I wrote the other day, the use of the worldwide social media together with street demonstrations, hopefully, is a trend that is likely to be repeated around the world as the anti-war protests grow.

The fact that it’s happening on Israeli streets has the neocons worried.

WAR AGAINST IRAN: AT LAST, A WORLD WIDE ANTI-WAR CAMPAIGN GATHERS PACE

It’s taken a long while to get going but, at long last, the campaign to say ‘no’ to a war against Iran is gathering momentum.

While the threat of war has been around for years, it seems that ordinary people have only begun to take it seriously just recently.

The reason for this is simple; unlike the lead up to the Iraq war where the threat of war was far more palpable, the threat to Iran has been less obvious due to the ‘good cop, bad cop’ propaganda methods used by the Western/Israeli alliance whereby the US and their Western allies present themselves as friends of Israel but, at the same time, wanting to prevent war by restraining Israel who are itching to attack Iran over Iran’s so-called ‘nuclear weapons program’.

The Western/Israeli alliance has learnt their lesson after the lead up to the Iraq war when literally millions took to the streets around the world to protest the imminent invasion and destruction of Iraq. These big protests happened because the people knew the war was going to happen despite Western leaders saying right up to the eve of invasion that a decision to attack had not yet been made. The world could see right through the Bush/Blair/Howard rhetoric about ‘a decision to attack had not been made’. The world knew it had and that it was merely a matter of ‘when’.

This time, the approach has been different. Instead of presenting a united front threatening war because of Iran being what the Israelis claim to be an existential threat to them, the US and their Western allies are instead insisting that sanctions and diplomacy be given an opportunity to work first. This, of course, was tried with Saddam as well but the difference in his case was that, according to the Western allies, Saddam was a threat to the entire world – and the Western allies proclaimed this very loudly while, at the same time, the Israelis kept a relatively low profile. With Iran it has been the other war round; the emphasis has been on the Iranian threat to Israel while the rhetoric about the Iranians being a threat to the rest of the world has been minimalised with the West insisting that it can be dealt with via the sanctions and diplomacy.

The effect of all this is that the world has been led – up until now – to believe that the US and their Western allies have been sincere in their desire to prevent war with Iran by using sanctions and diplomacy to deal with the perceived threat from Iran. And to give this perception even greater credibility, the US and their Western allies have been asking Israel very loudly to hold off from attacking Iran themselves but knowing full well that, ultimately, if Israel does attack Iran ‘pre-emptively’, the US and her allies will join in to prevent, so they will tell the world, Iran from retaliating against Israel.

Lately, however, the rhetoric for war has greatly increased and, as war seems now more certain than ever before, the ordinary people of the world are beginning to stir once again to demand that there be no war.

The protests this time have also taken on a new and unexpected twist; Iranians and Israelis are now beginning to speak out jointly via Youtube, Facebook and Twitter against war using the worldwide social media to express solidarity with each other. From this the word has spread. In Israel demonstrations against war that include placards expressing solidarity with the people of Iran have already taken place. This use of the worldwide social media together with street demonstrations, hopefully, is a trend that is likely to be repeated around the world as the anti-war protests grow.

However, the world needs to act quickly. If the Israelis and their Western partners get spooked by the prospect of the people of the world waking up to their ploy, they may just be inclined to bring forward an attack using some pretext that will provide a plausible cover for them before the protests and call for no war becomes overwhelming – especially this side of a Presidential election.

Let’s be quite clear about this; sooner or later there will be war against Iran. It will have nothing to do with Iran and its so-called ‘nuclear weapons program’ but it will have everything to do with regime change in Iran that will reinstate US regional hegemony and it will, at the same time, be about Israel removing the final barriers preventing them from creating a Greater Israel – the destruction of Hamas and Hezbollah.


...AND FOR AUSTRALIAN READERS: ANDREW BOLT NEWS

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

WAR AGAINST IRAN: NEOCON CONTRADICTIONS ABOUT AL-QAEDA

Several claims from neoconservatives about al-Qaeda seem to be in contradiction with each other.

In The Weekly Standard this month there is an article titled Al Qaeda’s Network in Iran which tells of Iran’s alleged partnerships with al-Qaeda. Elsewhere in The Weekly Standard there is another article called How the Iranians are Helping the Syrians which alleges that the Iranians are in cahoots with Assad. But then we have completely contradictory story from another neoconservative rag, National Review Online, which is running an article titled Al Qaeda in Rebel Syria which alleges that al-Qaeda have infiltrated rebel units fighting against Assad.

Why would Iran be supporting al-Qaeda in Iran while supporting Assad in Syria if al-Qaeda were fighting with the rebels in Syria against Assad?

Here’s the explanation: There is no al-Qaeda as such. ‘al-Qaeda’ is simply a catch-all label for any Islamist that the West thinks are ultimately working against their interests. There used to be a group called ‘al-Qaeda’ but that disappeared long ago when Osama bin Laden died back in December 2001, but, like Osama bin Laden, the al-Qaeda label was convenient to keep alive to perpetuate the notion of there being an enemy for the West to continue combating. While Osama bin Laden had to be ‘killed off’ because his use-by date had long passed, al-Qaeda, it seems, is still serving a useful purpose – even if it is only to make fools of the neocons with their contradictory nonsense.


UPDATE

As if to demonstrate how loosely the ‘al-Qaeda’ label is bandied about these days, there’s a classic example of its misuse by Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman today who is quoted in Ha’aretz as saying about the Palestinian Authority; "We are dealing with Al-Qaeda terror on the one hand and diplomatic terror by Abu Mazen on the other."


...AND FOR AUSTRALIAN READERS: ANDREW BOLT NEWS

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

MICHAEL RUBIN: NEOCON APOLOGIST WHO DOTH PROTESTETH FAR TOO MUCH

Michael Rubin is one of those neocon writers who revel in trying to excuse American and Israeli ill-doing in order to damage control the exposed excesses of their policies and goings-on.

In his latest piece in Commentary, Rubin complains of ‘double standards’ comparing the criticism of George W. Bush over the abuse at Abu Ghraib, which Rubin says quite rightly was “both horrendous and inexcusable”, with the recent massacre of civilians in Afghanistan which Rubin says, also quite rightly, was “tragic”. The problem, however, is that Rubin can’t just leave it at that; he needs to put some kind of other spin on this and stories like it. They either get embellished for propaganda purposes or are used for some other ulterior motive. Read his piece – it’s very short – to see what I mean; you don’t need me to explain it to you.

I always wonder what it is about propagandists like Rubin that they should go to such extraordinary lengths to defend the indefensible knowing full well that in doing so they are only digging an even deeper hole in which to bury themselves.

In this piece written in 2004, Rubin attempts to smear one of the whistleblowers who exposed the goings-on at the Office of Special Plans (OSP) at the Pentagon during the run up to the war against Iraq as the neocons fed false intelligence up to a gullible President Bush via the very hawkish Vice-President Dick Cheney. In his story, Rubin is not acting merely as a neoconservative propagandist attempting to realign history using Orwellian methods, but he is also actually one of the actors in the screenplay – and in classic Orwellian doublespeak, Rubin titles his piece Web of Conspiracies when, in reality, the only 'web of conspiracies' that existed during this period were the ones being spun by the OSP!

As usual, Rubin goes over the top. He truly does protesteth too much.

Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski is the whistleblower Rubin is trying to smear. She worked on the Near East and South Asia (NESA) desk at the Pentagon from May 2002 through to February 2003. Prior to that she worked at the Pentagon as an analyst on sub-Saharan Africa policy and was in the Pentagon on 11 September 2001.

During her time on the NESA desk, which came under the auspices of Doug Feith as did the OSP, Kwiatkowski was in a position to observe the goings-on at the OSP. During her time there she wrote of what she observed. In 2004 they were published as the New Pentagon Papers. The article exposed how the ‘evidence’ of Saddam’s WMD’s was being fabricated and used for propaganda by the neoconservatives to justify invading Iraq.

Knowing, of course, what we know now about the lies that were told to justify the invasion and destruction of Iraq, Rubin’s 2004 article demonstrate the extent to which he and his fellow travellers are prepared to go in order to perpetuate the lies and defend the indefensible.


...AND FOR AUSTRALIAN READERS: ANDREW BOLT NEWS

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

WAR AGAINST IRAN: UNILATERAL STRIKE BY ISRAEL IMPOSSIBLE

There has for a long time been a lot of talk of Israel launching a unilateral strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities. There has even been talk of Israel launching a unilateral strike without warning the US in advance.

Such talk is nonsense. It is merely part of a “good cop, bad cop” strategy designed on the one hand to demonstrate to the world how anxious Israel is about Iran’s so-called ‘nuclear weapons program’, while on the other hand creating the illusion that US President Obama is the reluctant protector of Israel against Iranian ‘threats’ and retaliation.

The reality is this: It would be utterly impossible for Israel to launch a truly unilateral strike against Iran, and to even suggest that Israel would launch such a strike without warning the US in advance, borders on downright stupidity.

The reason it would be impossible for Israel to strike ‘unilaterally’ is simple; everything Israel needs in order to strike Iran – from jet fuel to bombs, to anti-retaliatory measures – comes from the US. Indeed, not only would Israel not be able to unilaterally strike Iran, it would actually need US connivance to do so – no matter how discreet the Israelis wanted to be about protecting Obama from blame of initiating war.

At the moment, Obama needs to tread a very careful path. On the one hand he can’t afford to ‘pre-emptively’ go to war against Iran for the Israelis – at least not this side of an election – but on the other hand, he can’t afford to be seen not supporting Israel – at least not this side of an election when the Jewish vote will be important for him.

But all this is simply for political show. The Israelis really couldn’t care less who the President is, just as long as whoever it is, he ultimately supports Israel. Sure, they would prefer a Republican President to get up at the next election since the Republicans are far more militantly sympathetic to the right-wing Israeli cause and, if a Republican President wins the election, the Israelis will be assured of support from the people of America since the Israeli cause is a major platform of the Republican campaign. But, if Obama is returned, the Israelis know that they can rely on him as a nothing to lose President for support in helping them attack Iran.

At this time, however, the “good cop, bad cop” strategy is in play for the sake of public opinion, but behind the scenes, as I have mentioned elsewhere on this blog, everything is already in place and ready to go.
It’s just a matter of finding – or creating – the right opportunity. That opportunity might arise at anytime, but one thing everyone can be assured of; there will be absolutely nothing ‘unilateral’ about it.


...AND FOR AUSTRALIAN READERS: ANDREW BOLT NEWS

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

WAR AGAINST IRAN: THE JEFFREY GOLDBERG CONSPIRACY THEORY

A little over a week ago, the well-known neoconservative warmonger, Jeffrey Goldberg, wrote an article titled; In Iran Standoff, Netanyahu Could Be Bluffing. In it Goldberg pushes the theory that Obama and Netanyahu are together playing a game of bluff with the Iranians. The game revolves around simply frightening Iran into giving up its so-called ‘nuclear weapons program’ by threatening it with attack. Goldberg writes of the background to this theory:

I’m talking about the belief, advanced to me by a former senior Israeli military official, and echoed by other non-insane people, that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is bluffing: He has never had any intention of launching air and missile strikes against Iran’s nuclear program, and is working behind the scenes with Obama to stop Iran through sanctions.

Goldberg goes on to say:

The theory has its attractions. For one, Israel hasn’t yet attacked Iran, though its leaders, going back to Yitzhak Rabin, have all stressed the danger an Iranian nuclear program would pose to Israel’s existence. For at least the past two years, experts have argued that an Israeli strike is highly likely, yet it hasn’t happened.
Another attraction has to do with the personality of the man himself: Netanyahu is much better at talking than doing. Despite his reputation in some circles as a trigger-happy extremist, Netanyahu has, when compared with his recent predecessors, only sparingly used force against foes such as Hezbollah and Hamas. What he does deploy, daily, are words -- huge gusts of words infused with drama and portents of catastrophe.

The problem with this theory is that it’s predicated on three factors: 1) that Iran has a nuclear weapons program; 2) that Iran is actually going to build a bomb and; 3) that Iran will use it on Israel.

When one examines the realities revolving around these three factors however, one finds that none of them stack up.

For a start, there is no hard evidence at all that Iran has a nuclear weapons program. For years Israel and the US have accused the Iranians of having a nuclear weapons program and for years they have made a concerted effort to try and convince the world – and for years they have consistently failed to produce a single skerrick of hard evidence. And, without the material, they’re not going to be able to build a bomb. As for actually using it; this is pure nonsense. Within half an hour of using it, Iran’s leaders know full well that the Israelis will retaliate with their own nuclear weapons.

The US, the Israelis, and all of their allies, know all of this. They know that all of this is not about Iran’s so-called ‘nuclear weapons program’ at all but, rather, it is about Israel and its endgame strategy of creating a Greater Israel by eliminating Hamas, Hezbollah and the regime in Iran that supports them. At the same time, it is also about US hegemony in a resource-rich region of the world.

There is no conspiracy theory about Netanyahu bluffing about attacking Iran. The entire US/Israeli strategic endgame revolves around them attacking Iran. Without a war against Iran, Israel has no casus belli to attack Hezbollah and Hamas and the US cannot insist on regime change when the time comes for Iran to capitulate or face an overwhelming and devastating bombing campaign on its major centers.

The Americans and the Israeli are ready; it’s now just a matter of when. There is no bluff; there will only be war.

The only conspiracy theory here is the one that says; ‘Iran has a nuclear weapons program’.


...AND FOR AUSTRALIAN READERS: ANDREW BOLT NEWS

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