The Real Power Behind the Throne-to-Be

As the United States election race enters the final stretch, Barack Obama as the candidate promising change is revealing his true colors, much to the despair of anyone actually expecting any change. His recent call to declare Jerusalem the undivided capital of Israel, his denial of Palestinians’’ right of return, and his support for a Bantustan Palestinian “state” which poses no threat to Israel show how completely he has caved in to the Zionist establishment on that issue.

As President George W Bush calls for early reductions in combat troops in Iraq, Obama’s position on Iraq — a vow to bring troops home within 16 months, excepting a “residual force” — looks less and less of a defining moment in his foreign policy. Whatever happens to troop levels, there is no explicit talk of overriding the plans for 14 permanent bases.

Obama is toeing the line in Afghanistan, too. As NATO casualties continue to mount, surpassing monthly Iraqi casualties as of June this year, he is proposing — now seconded by McCain — that the United States shift up to 15,000 more troops there from Iraq. Just prior to his trip to Afghanistan, he wrote in a New York Times op-ed, “We need more troops, more helicopters, better intelligence-gathering and more nonmilitary assistance to accomplish the mission there.” Please, will someone show me the silver lining in an Obama victory in November?

But then none of the above should come as any surprise to those familiar with his chief promoter and foreign policy adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, who, along with current (and likely future) Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, has already entered history as helping “suck the Soviets into a Vietnamese quagmire.” These are the words of President Jimmy Carter’s Under-Secretary of Defense Walter Slocumbe in March 1979, eight months before the Soviets were successfully “sucked in,” when Gates was CIA chief. The changing of the guard, come November, will change nothing. US foreign policy has a logic which transcends who sleeps in the White House.

What’s especially ghoulish about all this is that there are five Brzezinski offspring who are all onboard the Obama wagon: Mark (director of Russian and Eurasian Affairs at the National Security Council under President Bill Clinton, and one of the prime movers of the 2004 color revolution in Ukraine), Ian (currently the US Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for European and NATO affairs and a backer of Kosovan independence, NATO expansion into Ukraine and Georgia and US ABM missiles in Poland), Mika (political commentator on MSNBC whose interview with Michele Obama contributed to the general media Obamamania) and finally, Matthew (a friend of Ilyas Akhmadov, “foreign minister” and US envoy of the Chechen opposition).

Brzezinski’s brand of anti-Russian, anti-Muslim geopolitics will dominate a future Obama administration. In Second Chance: Three Presidents and the Crisis of American Superpower, published last year, he lays out his New World Order agenda without so much as a blush. Apparently, there is a global political awakening going on, the goal of which is “dignity”. Not economic development, not the alleviation of poverty, not national sovereignty against the IMF and World Bank. Just plain old dignity, though Zbig’s brand of dignity is the kind attained through secession, balkanization, and the creation of weak statelets for each ethnic minority subservient to the US. Think: Kosovo and — if he has his way — Chechenia. Neo-Wilsonian demagogy in the service not of peace but of US world domination, encirclement of Russia and control of the Arab world.

Zbig said in endorsing Obama: “What makes Obama attractive to me is that he understands that we live in a very different world where we have to relate to a variety of cultures and peoples.” Obama’s alleged global approach and trans-ethnic, trans-racial allure are right out of Zbig’s university textbook, or rather Second Chance, which will be the manual for the Obama campaign and presidency.

Obama is literally a second chance for Brzezinski: having destroyed the Soviet Union and shattered the Warsaw Pact, he now wants to dismember the Russian Federation itself and put the finishing touches on Afghanistan as an impregnable US military base against China, Russia… the list is endless. Perhaps Zbig is dreaming of restoring Greater Poland circa 1600 — from the Black Sea to the Baltic, all controlled by petty szlachta aristocrats like . . . the Brzezinskis?

The Economist blog put it best: “A new brain for Barack Obama! It’s 78 years old and it still works perfectly. It belongs to Zbigniew Brzezinski, the peppery ex-national security adviser to Jimmy Carter.”

The messianic idealism of the Obama campaign has not been seen since the days of another Brzezinski creation — Jimmy Carter, who made him national security adviser with disastrous results. Brzezinski’s anti-Russian obsession back in 1976 prompted him to foment the rise of Islamic fundamentalism, which he touted as the greatest single bulwark against Soviet communism. Tarpley argues that Brzezinski was even a prime behind-the-scenes mover in the overthrow of the Shah of Iran and installing Ayatollah Khomeini in power in Tehran. Brzezinski cared less about the Middle East and its oil than he did about the need for a centre from which Islamic fundamentalism of the most retrograde type could penetrate the soft southern underbelly of the USSR. For Brzezinski, the space between the southern frontier of the Soviet and the Indian Ocean littoral became an “arc of crisis”, and we have his handiwork to thank for the horrors taking place there to this day.

The 1980 Carter Doctrine — that the US was determined to dominate the Persian Gulf — is at the root of the first Gulf War, of the present Iraq war, and of the possible war on Iran. Brzezinski’s grandiose schemes of world transformation caused a renewal of the Cold War and gave birth to Al-Qaeda, and without Soviet restraint the results could easily have been far more tragic than they turned out to be. By 1980, disillusionment with Carter led to the nightmare of the Reagan regime. But this was of little concern to Brzezinski — a mere blip on his radar screen.

In 2008, we have an obscure Illinois senator, a neophyte with no legislative achievements to speak of, but with a raft of utopian promises, including solving the race problem once and for all. Recession, unemployment and an alarming rise in poverty are of no consequence; a golden age is at hand thanks to his magnetic personality. Since he knows nothing of foreign policy, these matters will be competently managed by the Brzezinski cabal.

But there seems to be one slight hitch. Despite Obama’s slavish pro-Israeli genuflections of late, he is still not trusted by the Jewish lobby. Quite possibly because they know who the power behind the throne-to-be is, and they can’t stomach him, nor he them. Addressing the AIPAC crew in an interview with The Daily Telegraph, he said, “They operate not by arguing but by slandering, vilifying, demonizing. They very promptly wheel out anti-Semitism. There is an element of paranoia in this inclination to view any serious attempt at a compromised peace as somehow directed against Israel.”

But then Brzezinski was a key player in Carter’s 1978 Camp David Accords, much loathed by the Zionists as giving up Sinai in exchange for a cold peace with Egypt. Brzezinski is definitely not a hardcore Zionist, though he’s happy to allow the destruction of Palestine. Perhaps he is, under his suave exterior, still the quintessential Polish anti-Semite, with a vision of the New World Order without Israel at the centre.

If he can keep up the momentum, however, he may be able to outflank the Zionists in Washington and bringing his horse first past the finish line. They are on the defensive these days, what with spy trials, even J Street Project, a Jewish lobby group that — gasp — dares to criticize Israel. Is this, then, the silver lining in an Obama victory?

Eric Walberg is a journalist who worked in Uzbekistan and is now writing for Al-Ahram Weekly in Cairo. He is the author of From Postmodernism to Postsecularism: Re-Emerging Islamic Civilization and Postmodern Imperialism: Geopolitics and the Great Games. Read other articles by Eric, or visit Eric's website.

10 comments on this article so far ...

Comments RSS feed

  1. bozhidar balkas said on July 23rd, 2008 at 12:19pm #

    i haven`t yet seen proof that uncle sam has ever caved to zionists.
    just because US and israel r expanding doesn`t prove that US is expanding because israel commands uncle sam to expand.
    nor is there proof that israel is expanding is spite of US,EU vigorous any other kind objection to it.
    at the moment interests of EU, US, israel appear same or similar.
    thank u

  2. Michael Kenny said on July 23rd, 2008 at 1:21pm #

    Obama is the Israel Lobby’s candidate and he will follow their line. No question of divided loyalties in the Lobby. Their sole and undivided loyalty is to Israel and that means ABR (Anybody but a Republican). The Republicans and the neocons (including, perhaps especially, the Jewish ones) have done immense damage to Israel, so the Lobby wants a Democrat at any price. The would have preferred Hillary (the whole world loves Bill!) but they’ll settle for Obama.

    Israel is built entirely on American brute force and the unwinnable wars have destroyed that force. Hence, the Lobby will want the wars ended ASAP and will not want a third unwinnable war to be started against Iran. Thus, out of Iraq first, under some face-saving timetable, followed by the same in Afghanistan makes sense. That was what James Baker and Daddybird tried to do a few years ago, but Junior was too pig-headed to go along. It will thus have to wait until 21 January.

    The other Lobby essential is NATO. Not because they still entertain any illusions that Europeans will fight for Israel but because it provides a convenient legal pretext for maintaining US forces and military supplies close to Israel. Thus, Europe must be re-subjugated, as it was during the cold war. This is being addressed at once (more or less literally!). For most Europeans, Obama is the risen Kennedy and he will be received as such in the coming days. Conveniently smeared by the New Yorker, so Europeans will see him as a fellow victim of that nasty old Lobby, conveniently “forced” to move his venue to a spot where the TV cameras can get both him and the Brandenburg Gate in the frame at the same time, all he needs now is the firey chariot! And, ideally, he should not say “I am a doughnut” (that’s what a “Berliner” is!).

    Will he be able to deliver what the Lobby wants? I doubt it. He will try, but US military, economic and political power (that’s the order it works in) is probably definitively destroyed (essentially because of the Lobby!) and the economy will probably have collapsed before he gets anywhere near rebuilding the military even to 2001 levels.

    So I wouldn’t worry over much about Brzezinski, his children, his grandchildren or his great-grandchildren. Talk is cheap, war is dear and America is about to become poor.

  3. MrSynec3 said on July 23rd, 2008 at 6:49pm #

    Michael Kenny wrote:
    “The Republicans and the neocons (including, perhaps especially, the Jewish ones) have done immense damage to Israel, so the Lobby wants a Democrat at any price.”

    Michael,

    Very clever bull-shitting artistry from you but you are not fooling
    anyone at all. You think of yourself a clever neo-con. Ha, but you are not.

  4. bozhidar balkas said on July 24th, 2008 at 6:12am #

    unless we replace uncle sam w. auntie JANE w. human face, more wars or cries of “DEAR UNCLE” r on the way.
    if we can’t get rid of him, perhaps we can soften him a bit or better yet force him to mary auntie jane whom he has been raping for 2 cent’s.
    aaah, but how?
    vote for nader. a small step, to be sure. but even a tiny step in right direction is a stupendous success for hobos and housewives.
    sheshe, chinese for thanx.

  5. Harry said on July 24th, 2008 at 3:43pm #

    http://democracyandsocialism.com/Articles/TheUSelectionsandchange.html

  6. Harry said on July 24th, 2008 at 3:44pm #

    The US Elections and Change
    Tuesday November 7, 2006 was the midterm election day in the U. S., more than 40% or about 80 million Americans exercised their rights and cast their ballots in that day, which by the standards of this country was an improvement.

    The majority of those who participated in these elections, showed their discontent about the terrible things that happened inside the country and by the aggressive behaviour of their government around the world. They simply wanted a change.

    Republicans always expressed that they are not pro-corporations (but they are), and Democrats always stated that they work for the middle-class (but they do not). Hereby, they acknowledged that the U.S. society is a class society. In this society, which is undoubtedly capitalistic, the majority of people are workers, working people, unemployed, discriminated women, disenchanted youth, impoverished students, sweat-shop immigrant workers, poor and deprived who were poorly represented or not represented at all by their merits. They should organize and struggle for their rights.

    It is evident that without these progressive elements, the change which was viewed by 3 out of 5 voters – and of course it was the will of the majority of those 60% who did not participate in that election – will not take place.

    But what happened on that day was historically important and a step forward. The right wing politicians already have started their counter-attack especially through corporate-media, to neutralize the people’s achievements. To bring change, the American people have to be vigilant and continue their historic march toward progressive targets. This, will be good for them as well as it will be helpful for the well-being of all the peoples around the world.

    Back to top

  7. joed said on July 24th, 2008 at 4:42pm #

    cynthia mckinney of the green party would make a great president. ralph nader would be excellent for the job too!
    if you have to vote for a winner then you have already lost.
    your vote hasn’t counted for 8+ years. what possible reason could you come up with that your vote will matter this year. the fix is in folks. obama mccain or any of these types will only be more of the same. a vote for obama is a vote for war, poverty, loss of legal, civil and human rights. a vote for obama is a vote for mccain and visa-versa.

  8. whatamess said on July 24th, 2008 at 7:23pm #

    if aipac is against obama, then what choice does one have but still be for him, even in his yarmulka, what a disaster

  9. Patrick Sullivan said on July 25th, 2008 at 10:22am #

    Barak Obama is as much of a politician as Rochester Van Jones was a Butler; They’re actors who are both employed by the same boss: “Mr Benny.”

  10. Pani said on July 25th, 2008 at 10:40am #

    As a sociologist who researches the stigma of fatness, I lost all respect for ZBrezenski when I heard him speak at the Copernicus Center in Chicago. His speech was supposed to be about international politics, but all of a sudden he went off on a tangent about “the obesity crisis.” Then I just thought he was just like the rest of the sheeple who get their information from the media and its marketing campaigns. But having further read his is part of the New World Order, that makes more sense. Weight obsession keeps the public distracted, scapegoats obesity for every conceivable ill so we look away from things like pollution and side effects of risky and unnecessary medication, and keeps billions flowing from the middle class to the power-elite. Maybe it wasn’t a spontaneous lapse on his part after all!

    The above was a really informative article. I had no idea that ZB had a dynasty with so many of his offspring in positions of prominence. (If he is so concerned about world resources, maybe he should have practiced population control!) But there was one thing in this article that bothered me a bit. The “typical Polish antisemite.” Yes, Poland has a ugly history of antisemitism that it has not taken full responsiblity for. (Although in the middle ages, Poland was more tolerant than many European countries, which is why so many Jewish people moved there.) But not ALL Polish people are antisemetic either. I don’t think the author meant to imply they were, just that from the way it is worded, it is easy to make that generalization. I am 1/2 Polish American and deeply saddened by the MidEast situation. I have met people from both Israel and Palestine and can honestly say they are among the highest caliber folks I ever want to meet. Maybe if the world stopped trying to leverage the tensions in that part of the world to meet their own agendas, the peace process would be easier.