Iran War: American Military Versus Israel Firsters

Why must Jewish organizations be and be seen as the loudest drum-beaters of all? Why can we not bring ourselves to say that military intervention is not on the table at all? Why not stash it under the table, out of sight and mount instead a diplomatic assault?

— Leonard Fein (Forward November 7, 2007)


As the White House and Congress escalate their economic sanctions and military threats against Iran, top military commanders and Pentagon officials have launched a counter-offensive, opposing a new Middle East War. While some commentators and journalists, like Chris Hedges (Truthdig, November 13, 2007), privy to this high stakes inter-elite conflict, attribute this to a White House cabal led by Vice President Cheney, a more stringent and accurate assessment pits the Zionist Power Configuration (ZPC) in the center of the Iran war debate. There is a great deal riding in this conflict — the future of the American empire as well as the balance of power in the Middle East. Equally important is the future of the US military and our already heavily constrained democratic freedoms. The outcome of the continuous and deepening confrontation between top US military officials and the Israel Firsters over US foreign policy in the Middle East has raised fundamental questions over self-determination, colonization, civilian primacy and military political intervention, empire or republic. These and related issues are far from being of academic interest only; they concern the future of America.

Recent History of the Civilian Militarists versus Anti-War Movements

Over the past seven years, the civilian militarists in the executive branch and Congress have resoundingly defeated any and all efforts by Congressional critics and anti-war leaders to end the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Since 2003, the peace movement has practically vanished from the streets — in large part a product of its own self-destruction. The great majority of anti-war leaders opted for Democratic Party-electoral politics, a strategy that led to the successful election of a pro-war Democratic majority. The retreat of the anti-war movement turned into a full-scale rout when the government moved toward a new war with Iran: the Zionist-influenced half of the peace movement refused to join forces to oppose the Iran war agenda — heavily influenced by their loyalty to Israel and its shrill cries of an ‘existential’ danger from non-existent Iranian nuclear weapons and dependent on ‘liberal’ Zionist donors.

Along with the capitulation of the anti-war leaders and absence of any ‘street politics’, liberal Democrats, or what passes for them, fell into line with the Israel First Democratic congress-people pushing for an increasingly bellicose political agenda toward Iran. The White House, especially the Vice President’s office were fully in tune with the Israel Firsters and the ZPC ‘keeping the military option’ on the table and priming the US forces in the Gulf for offensive action. Within the military and the intelligence services strong opposition emerged to an attack on Iran.

American Military Versus the ZPC Fight over Middle East Wars

The battle between the civilian militarists (Zion-Cons) in the Pentagon and the military brass took place, in large part, behind closed doors: From the beginning, the military was severely handicapped in so far as they could not engage in public debate. The military elite did not possess an army of lobbyists, activist ideologues and the entire mass media apparatus to promote their point of view. The ZPC-Israel Firsters’ Wars-For-Israel crowd did have all of these ‘resources’ in abundance, and they used them to the maximum in a spiteful and arrogant fashion, when the occasion arose — such as when military officers testifying before Congress questioned the war-to-be in Iraq. Zion-militarists like Richard Perle, Norman Podhoretz and their influential cohort baited the military for having ‘the most advanced arms and refusing to use them’, of being fearful of expending troops to defend US security interests in the Middle East, of being ultra-cautious when audacity and preemptive action was necessary. The Israel-Firsters, who not only never risked a broken fingernail on any battlefield, deprecated the generals to increase their power to order them around through their servile operatives in the Rumsfeld Pentagon, Vice President’s Office and in Bush’s National Security Council. The Zion-Cons’ arm-chair military strategists have absolutely no qualms in sending US troops to war in Afghanistan, Iraq and now Iran to enhance Israeli regional power because 99.8% of the rank and file troops are not of their kin and kind. On the contrary they ridicule the US military precisely to prosecute wars and avoid the loss of Israeli-Jewish lives, resulting from an Israeli attack on Iran to enhance its power in the Middle East.

Israel-Firsters Win Round One

For all of the above-enumerated reasons, the Israel-Firsters overcame the doubts and questions on the war by the military in the run-up to and continuation of the Iraq War. The ZPC’s success in launching the war over military objections was largely due to their control over US civilian institutions and the primacy of these institutions over any and all military political dissent. However the ZPC was not content with repressing civilian dissent, they aggressively repressed and silenced any opposition from within the military: General Eric Shinseki, Chief of Staff of the Army saw his career destroyed when he questioned US policy on the eve of the Iraq invasion. Two years later, General Peter Pace was denied a second term as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff when he rejected claims by the White House and the ZPC that Iran was supplying weapons to the Iraqi insurgents. Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez was retired following his call for the withdrawal of US troops in Iraq, which he later described as “a nightmare with no end in sight”. General John Abazaid followed. Captains and Colonels in the Pentagon who disagreed with the lies and fabrication of ‘intelligence’ by the Zion-Cons in the Pentagon leading to the Iraq invasion were marginalized and/or silenced. Zion-Cons in the Pentagon marginalized CIA intelligence reports that didn’t fit in with their war propaganda; these studies were written, cut, and spliced to serve their ends. The Zion-Cons in the Pentagon established a parallel ‘intelligence’ office under their exclusive control (Office of Special Planning) and placed ‘one of their own’, Abraham Shumsky, in charge.

In the Zion-Con charge to push the US into a new war with Iran, they (along with Vice President Cheney) have successfully delayed and forced the rewrite of a collective report by various intelligence agencies, the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iran, because it had to fit in with their war plans.

The humiliating defeats and gratuitous public insults which the victorious ZPC inflicted on the US military has had the effect of raising the back of senior officers in the run-up to a military attack on Iran. The military is going public and fighting back with biting open criticism of the White House and Zion-Con war planners. The underlying deep and widespread hostility of the high-ranking military officials has nothing to do with Zion-Con charges of ‘anti-Semitism’ and everything to do with the destruction, demoralization and discredit of the US military which has resulted from following Zion-Con war policies in Iraq.

The US armed forces have crumbled and decayed as the Iraq occupation and counter-insurgency progresses into its 6th year. Over half of the officers are refusing to re-enlist, recruiting quotas are not being reached except by drastically lowering standards, and morale of on-duty reservists is at it’s lowest because of extended tours of duty. Black enlistment has dropped precipitously. Despite the war being portrayed by President Bush and Israeli leaders including Prime Minister Olmert as for Israel’s national survival, American Jewish war-time enlistment is at its lowest in almost a century. Public sentiment for the military has declined sharply since the war, exacerbated by Zionist (Richard Perle, Frederick Kagan, Kenneth Pollack and Martin Indyk) charges of incompetence against American military occupation forces. The loss of prestige, enlistment and the increasing over-stretch of the army and the abrasive and domineering way in which the Zion-Cons denigrate active US military commanders has raised their ire. At one point in an interview, General Tommy Franks referred to Zion-Con ex-Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith as ‘the dumbest bastard I ever knew’.

Round Two: American Military Versus Israel-Firsters: The Iran War

Recognizing how they were outgunned by the Zion-Con monopoly of public space for political discussion in the run-up to the Iraq invasion, the military has gone public. Admiral William Fallon, head of CENTCOM (Central Command) has launched a series of interviews designed to counter Zion-Con war propaganda. He has formed an anti-War-With-Iran alliance with senior military officers, Secretary of Defense Gates and sectors of the intelligence services not under Zion-Con influence (Financial Times Nov. 12, 2007 p.1). The Secretary of Defense is not a reliable ally to the officers opposed to an Iran war since he is notorious for caving in to ZPC pressure when his post in under threat.

Every major Israeli public spokes-person has at least raised the issue of a sneak attack (translation: ‘preventive war’ in Zion-speak) and many are in favor of an immediate attack. Reliable sources in Israel claim that war preparations are already advanced. Fabricating ‘existential threats’ to Israeli existence, Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni has spoken forcefully even … shrilly, about Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s threat to ‘wipe Israel off the map’ — a much repeated, deliberate mistranslation of the President’s reference to Israel (more reliable translations refer to ‘the regime currently occupying Jerusalem disappearing into history’).

While Israeli officials have placed war with Iran as their second most important priority on their foreign policy agenda, by far their highest priority is convincing and manipulating the US to carry out the war and save Israel the enormous economic cost and loss of Israeli lives. The Israeli state has made its war policy the central task for their agents and their apparatus in the US. The ZPC has taken up the Israeli line with a vengeance. Several hundred full-time functionaries from all the major Jewish organizations have visited and ‘advised’ Congress that bellicose support for a war against Iran is the primary way to demonstrate their unconditional defense of Israel’s ‘survival’ and guarantee campaign financing from their wealthy political donor base. Over the past year, several major daily newspapers, weekly and monthly magazines from the New York Times through Time, Newsweek, the New Yorker, and the entire yellow press (NY Post, New York Sun, The Daily News) has published reams of propaganda articles fabricating an Iranian nuclear threat, demonizing Iran and its leaders and calling for the US to bomb Iran and eliminate Israel’s ‘existential’ (the most nauseating and overused cliché) threat. Several thousand op-ed pieces have been written parroting the Israeli war-line by a small army of Zionist academics and think tank propagandists. Breathless and vitriolic, the Israel Firsters claim that ‘time is running out’, that Iran’s pursuit of diplomacy is a ploy for inaction, that Iran’s well-documented openness to negotiations is a trick. Venomous attacks are launched against Europeans for not pursuing the military option; Germany is slandered as following in the footsteps of the Nazis because its industries and banks still do business with Iran. US critics of the ZPC’s pursuit of an Iranian war for Israel are accused of being ‘soft on terrorism’, appeasers, and almost always labeled as overt or covert ‘anti-Semites. The massive, sustained and one-sided dominance by the ZPC of the Iranian war narrative has been successful. US public opinion surveys show over half (52% according to a Zogby Poll) of the US public is in favor of offensive bombing of Iran. Thus speaks the State of Israel via its overbearing politically dominant Fifth Column to the American People: The purpose of the USA is to serve and sacrifice for the greater good (and power and wealth and dominance) of Israel.

The clearest and most vicious Zion-Con counter-attack against the US military’s harsh reaction to their leading us into the Iraq War came from a predictable ultra-Zionist think-tank, the Foreign Policy Research Center (FPRC) run by Ilan Berman, a close collaborator with the Israeli extremist Likud leader Netanyahu. Speaking at a meeting co-sponsored by the FPRR and the Reserve Officers Association on October 15 2007 entitled “Mind the Gap”: Post-Iraq Civil-Military Relations in America, senior fellow Frank Hoffman attempted to turn senior military officers’ criticism of the disastrous Zion-Con authored Iraq War into a sinister military plot: “The nation’s leadership, civilian and military, need to come to grips with the emerging ‘stab-in-the-back’ thesis in the armed services and better define the social compact [sic] and code of conduct [sic] that governs the overall relationship between the masters of policy (the Zion-Cons) and the dedicated servants (the military) we ask to carry it out. (“Dereliction of Duty Redux?“). Hoffman attempts to deflect military and public anger at the enormous damage in morale, recruitment and lives which the Zion-Con war policies have inflicted on the US Armed Forces by invoking an abstract entity: “Our collective failure [sic] to address the torn fabric and weave a stronger and more enduring relationship will only allow a sore to fester and ultimately undermine the nation’s security” (ibid)

Obfuscating Zionist control over war policy, Hoffman instead refers to “civilian” control over the military as being “constitutionally, structurally (?) and historical well-grounded.” This is nonsense: there is no provision, article or clause in the American Constitution which states that the military should submit to civilian power subordinate to a foreign state.

After a vacuous general discussion of civilian-military relations in the lead-up to the Zion-Con designed Iraq War, Hoffman then tries to paint the military critics of Zion-Con Donald Rumsfeld as attacking an innovative defender of civilian supremacy over the military – even as he embraced wholesale torture techniques and violated every principle of the Geneva Convention of War and US Military Code of Conduct toward prisoners and civilians. Hoffman turns up the Zion-Con venom against military officers who dared to question Rumsfeld’s application of Israel’s illegal and totalitarian technique of colonial warfare in Iraq. He then launches a diatribe against the professional competence of senior military advisers, “who failed to provide military counsel because they were intimidated ‘yes men’ or who failed to recognize the complexity of war” (ibid). Berman’s prodigy, Hoffman, makes a case that the Zion-Con ‘masters of Iraq war policy’ were not responsible for the disastrous war – it was the military officers “who failed to provide candid advice, who fail in their duty to their immediate superiors and stay in their posts (who) are guilty of dereliction of duty to the President, the Congress and their subordinates.” (ibid) The same Zion-Cons who drove out and forced the resignation of American generals who had dissented with Wolfowitz, Feith, Abrams and Rumsfeld are now judged and condemned for dereliction of duty by the same Zion-Cons.

The Zion-Cons follow the Goebbels principle: ‘The Big Lie repeated often enough can convince the stupid masses.’

The Berman-Hoffman FPRC counter-attack against American military officers speaking truth to power is a limp effort to deflect attention from the Zion-Con policymakers’ treasonous behavior and their role in degrading the US military. The FPRC document blaming the military and unnamed civilians (exclusively non-Zionist) for the Iraq debacle is one of the numerous variants on the same theme by Zionist academic militarists justifying the power of the ZPC in the name of civilian supremacy, without spelling out the national loyalties of the ‘civilian’ masters of career military officers.

According to a detailed report published in the Financial Times (November 12, 2007), the US military is not buying the Zion-Con line: “Admiral William Fallon, head of Central Command which oversees military operations in the Middle East, said that while dealing with Iran was a ‘challenge’ a military strike was not in the offing.” (Page 1 and 9) Backed by many active senior officers and numerous retired generals, Fallon has dismissed the Zion-Con intellectuals and propagandists as ignorant war-mongers. In his own words: “It astounds me that so many pundits and other s are spending so much time yakking about this topic (of a military attack on Iran)” (FT: November 12, 2007 p.9).

In direct repudiation of the ZPC’s frenetic campaigning for economic sanctions leading to a military attack, top US military officials and even Secretary of Defense Gates have for the time being blocked the military option. Addressing the Zionist strategy of sequential wars against Israel’s enemies (Iran, Syria, Lebanon), Fallon stated: “It seems to me that we don’t need more problems”. His remarks are understood to reflect the views of the majority of senior officers in the Middle East combat zone but not Bush’s politically ambitious General Petraeus, who worked with his Israeli-Mossad partners (in Northern Iraq “Kurdistan”) in training and arming the Kurdish militia death squads: Peshmerga.

Retired Generals Anthony Zinni and Joseph Hoar, both former heads of CENTCOM, have pointed their fingers at the menace of the Zion-Cons and Israel-Firsters in the government. According to Gen. Hoar, “There is no doubt that an element in the government wants to strike Iran. But the good news is that the Secretary of Defense and senior military are against it” (FT November 12, 2007). The forced and voluntary retirement, including the indictment and jailing of some highly placed Zion-Cons in the Pentagon, White House, Treasury and State Departments have weakened their stranglehold over US policy in the White House. The top Zion-Con policymakers who have left or are in jail include Rumsfeld (Gentile Zionist), Wolfowitz, Feith, Franklin, Shumsky, Perle — in the Pentagon; Irving Libby, Wurmser, Ari Fleicher, Frum in the White House and many others too numerous to name.

While the Zion-Cons retain power in the higher circles of government, at this moment, they are not able to run roughshod over their military critics and opponents as they did in the run-up to the Iraq war. In part, this is because of the horrendous situation resulting from their war in Iraq, which has undermined their credibility and turned the vast majority of the US public against their war. Equally the Zion-Cons’ war and the disastrous impact of a prolonged (5 year) urban guerrilla resistance on the US Armed Forces, in terms of loss of personnel, morale, junior and senior officers and the over-extension of the US military to the detriment of the defense of the US Empire’s interests around the world has served as a ‘wake-up call’ for senior military command.

Drawing on their experience from the invasion of Iraq, few if any accept the Israeli-Zion-Con ‘evaluations’ of the outcome and response to a military attack. They remember too well the optimistic propaganda put out by Zionist academic ideologues like Kagan and Cohen that the ‘Iraqis will celebrate and welcome American forces into Baghdad as liberators’.

According to a report in the Financial Times, retired General Zinni speaking for the many active senior officers says ‘even a limited American attack could push Teheran to retaliate in a number of ways such as firing missiles at Israel, Saudi oilfields and US bases in Iraq, mining the Straits [sic] of Hormuz and activating sleeper terrorist cells around the world.” (FT op cit). He concluded by pointing out, “It is not a matter of a one-strike option. It is the classic question of… ‘and then what’?”. A more circumspect criticism of the Iran war reasoning has been voiced by Admiral Mike Muller. He objected to the US-Israeli agents “putting the military option on the table”. Admiral Muller added, “We’re in a conflict in two countries out there right now. We have to be incredibly thoughtful about the potential of in fact getting into a conflict with a third country in that part of the world.”(FT op cit).

One of the biggest dangers in forcing the US into a war with Iran is an Israeli sneak air attack, in which it destroys Iranian military installations causing Iran to retaliate against the US, Israel’s ally, main financier and armaments supplier. An Israeli air strike is not the only war provocation — the Mossad is deeply in involved in training Kurdish commandos to carry out terrorist cross-border attacks from Iraq, killing Iranian civilians and soldiers, bombing military installations and collecting intelligence, hoping to provoke a large-scale Iranian military response against ‘Kurdistan’. Iranian retaliation against Mossad trained Kurdish terrorists could then be twisted by Zion-Con ideologues and their ‘political elements in Washington’ (to quote Admiral Fallon) into a major invasion of Iraq, with the hope of convincing the Bush White House to ‘counter-attack in defense of our troops in Iraq’.

The Israeli regime and its Fifth Column in the United States have been pressing for unilateral intervention against Iran, preferably military, ever since 2003. The Daily Alert, mouthpiece of the 52 biggest Jewish organizations (The Presidents of the Major American Jewish Organizations) has published scores of articles each week, characterizing the Europeans as ‘foot draggers’, ‘weak on Iran’, ‘playing down’ or ‘failing’ to take serious the ‘existential threat to Israel’. The US Zion-Cons have their own ‘State Department’ and ‘overseas’ missions, with their own ‘foreign policy-makers and spokespeople’. They meet with European, Asian and Latin American heads of State in the US or during ‘visits’ overseas, mobilizing advising, organizing and strengthening Zion-Con outposts throughout Europe and beyond. Their international reach has succeeded in a number of important decisions and appointments, most notably in Brussels and in Sarkozy’s appointment of Zionist fanatic Bernard Kouchner as France’s Minister of Foreign Relations. In a rather crude and undiplomatic show of Zionist loyalty immediately upon taking office, Kouchner declared France to be in favor of a military option against Iran. He was later pressured to retract, but Sarkozy, who himself is no minor league Israel supporter, has echoed Kouchner’s line. One of Kouchner’s first acts was to travel to American-occupied Iraq to express his personal support for the occupation. As a result of Israeli and Zion-Con pressure on the White House, France, Germany and England have all supported the escalation of sanctions against Iran…the Zionist strategy of ‘strangle the economy now and bomb later’.

The Zion-Cons’ weakness is relative: Although they no longer can purge (or ‘retire’) or silence senior military officers opposed to their Mid East Wars for Israel, they are extremely effective in discrediting any and all impartial international bodies and reports which fail to support the Israeli line that Iran represents an ‘existential threat’ to its survival (code language for ‘challenges or resists Israel’s drive to dominate the region’). Predictably taking their cue from the Israeli foreign office’s dismissal of the United Nations International Atomic Energy Agency’s report (November 15, 2007) which documented that Iran had no nuclear arms program and no capacity to construct a nuclear weapon at least for the next five years, the ZPC unleashed a mass media propaganda campaign attacking the IAEA chairman as a ‘pro-Iranian’ agent (Jerusalem Post November 16, 2007). At the same time the news ‘reports’ used ‘potted quotes’ from the Report, mentioning only the IAEA ‘reservations’ and the ‘questions unanswered’ and ‘issues not addressed’. US Senator from Tel Aviv, Joseph Lieberman combined both a distorted (or blatantly falsified) version of the IAEA Report and a vicious attack on its Chief, El Baradei, claiming that the Report ‘made it clear [sic] that Iran was still hiding [sic] large parts of its nuclear program’ (Jerusalem Post November 16, 2007). A careful or even casual reading of the IAEA Report shows not a single paragraph, line or word stating that Iran was ‘hiding large parts of its nuclear program’ as Lieberman accused. Ever mendacious, Lieberman, who had publicly called for an immediate military attack on ‘Iran, Iraq and Syria’ just days after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack, viciously attacked El Baradei for ‘writing in the report that Iran was cooperating and for not recommending a new round of sanctions’. In other words, the Zion-Cons with their mediocre academic mouth-pieces can save the UN, the IAEA and El Baradei’s time and money in site visits and delicate radiologic and satellite monitoring by handing over the Israeli Foreign Office’s pre-packaged ‘press’ handouts or ‘sexed-up intelligence reports’. The Zion-Cons make up in zeal what they lack in fact: Cooking up threats and telling the eager world that Iran is not cooperative and should be heavily sanctioned, starved or bombed into submission. The Zion-Cons follow the guidelines of the Jewish state’s agenda, to turn Iran into a Gaza Strip of deprivation and desperation.

The Israeli dismissal of the UN report on Iran, and the Zion-Con falsification of its contest and attack on its chief negotiator, El Baradei, was echoed by the While House and the Zion-colonized Congress. With a lack of originality characteristic of US Middle East policy-makers, they also cited the potted quotes from the IAEA Report to justify harsher sanctions and a greater degree of confrontation. The purpose is to provoke a breakup of the dialog long established between the IAEA and Iran. The Zion-Con-White House strategy is to implicate the IAEA in their savage attacks on Iran, and via harsher economic sanctions end Iran’s cooperation with the IAEA. Having forced the IAEA out they would then accuse Iran of rejecting dialog and cooperation with the United Nations. This contrived scenario (like the earlier phony claims that ‘Saddam threw out the weapons inspectors’) would set the stage for a US-British led military attack under the pretext that all diplomatic approaches failed to deter Iran’s nuclear program which the IAEA denied had any military component. It ill behooves anyone to actually consult the IAEA website and read the reports’ favorable account of Iran’s willing cooperation in providing site visits, documents and responses in answer to many of the key issues raised by the IAEA, the US and the EU. The report ultimately refutes the major accusations cooked up by the Zion-Cons and their political assets in the White House, State Department and Congress. The most important information contained in the IAEA Report is that its inspectors found no evidence of any Iranian effort to develop nuclear weapons.

US Military-Israel-Firsters: Fundamental Issues in Dispute

There are at least 5 fundamental issues in dispute between senior American military officials and ZPC:

These include (1) the nature of the Iranian threat: The ZPC argues that Iran represents an immediate deadly threat to the US, Israel, Iraq and the Gulf States. The American officers do not see the Iranians as a threat because they have engaged the Iranians in stopping the flow of arms and fighters to the Iraqi resistance; they recognize Iranian positive diplomatic overtures to all the Gulf States including Saudi Arabia; the US armada in the Persian Gulf is confident they can act as a deterrent to any Iranian attack; and finally the US Central Command know they are in the Persian Gulf facing Iran because of the White House’s provocative offensive strategy – and that Iran has not demonstrated anything but a defensive capability. Senior American officers view favorably Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s offer “to discuss with Arab nations a plan to enrich uranium outside the region in a neutral country such as Switzerland.”(Dow Jones News Service in Saudia Arabia, quoted in BBC News November 18, 2007). Not a single major television or print media in the US ran the Iranian president’s offer — as would be predictable in our Zionized media.

(2) Uranium Program: The Israelis, the only nuclear power in the Middle East, and among the top five nuclear powers, argue that Iran, which does not have a single nuclear weapon or even a weapons program, is an ‘existential (sic) threat’ to Israel, the Middle East, Europe and the United States. This is one argument that the ZPC have used to convince the Democratic Party majority in Congress, the White House and the pro-Israel wing of the US Peace Movement to escalate economic sanctions and keep the ‘military option’ on the table.

The only problem is that most European, Asian, African and Latin American diplomats, experts, the majority of world public opinion and most senior American officers don’t buy Israel’s shrill disinformation. All legal experts who have given a perfunctory look at the non-proliferation agreement (NPA) insist that there is absolutely no clause or article prohibiting uranium enrichment. Intelligence experts and US military report that Iran at the earliest may have sufficient enriched uranium by 2010 and may be able to produce a low-yield weapon by 2010-2015. The job of the ZPC, pursued at full speed, is to bury the NPA under mountains of fabrications, arguing that enriching uranium itself is a violation of ‘international law’. The purpose of this attempt to concoct a full state of belligerency is to escalate US and Israeli attacks on Iran and hasten the timing of a surprise, offensive onslaught. This is exactly the reason why American intelligence briefings and IAEA reports have aroused the fury of Israel and its operatives in the US and their calling for El Baradei’s dismissal.

Iranian Arms to Iraq: The US Military and CENTCOM have repeatedly denied, especially in light of another ZPC onslaught to the contrary, that the Iranian government is supplying arms, especially roadside mines or IEDs to Iraqi ‘terrorists’ and its allied militia forces. Contrary to the assertion of the leading Israeli spokes-people in the US Senate, the US military categorically denies that the IEDs are made in Iran, having discovered bomb-making factories in Iraq and from interrogation and actually studying the construction and contents of the IEDs.

Zionist-colonized Senators led by Hillary Clinton have followed the lead of Israeli Senatorial Spokesman Joseph Lieberman, rather than consulting with the American military, and are mouthing the rhetoric of Iranian arms killing American soldiers (FT November 12, 2007 p.9). Following the Lieberman-Israeli-ZPC propaganda blitz, the US Senate voted in favor of the Lieberman-Kyle resolution naming Iran’s principle border defense force, the Republican Guard, a ‘terrorist organization’, moving one step closer to an attack. The hollowness of this resolution is reflected in the fact to not one of any of the US’s servile allies chose to follow its lead in denouncing the Republican Guard. Nothing more clearly demonstrates the Israeli-ZPC colonization of the US congress than on questions of war and peace, when the legislature is more likely to follow the dictates of Israeli propagandists than to consult its own senior military officials.

Consequences of an attack on Iran: The main concern of the ZPC and its political clients in the White House and Congress is that an attack on Iran will secure the safety of Israel, eliminating a ‘mortal enemy’, preventing ‘another Holocaust’ and stopping a ‘new Hitler’. In pursuit of this policy, Israel’s US agents have repeatedly blocked every open-ended Iranian effort to cooperate with the US against the Taliban, Al Qaeda and other ‘terrorists groups’ as is profusely documented by two former high-ranking policy experts from the Bush Administration’s National Security Council, Hiliary Mann and Flynt Leverett,. (see “The Secret History of the Impending War with Iran That the White House Doesn’t Want You to Know”, Esquire Magazine, November 2007). Every Iranian offer of unconditional negotiation and cooperation with the US to fight terrorism, as the US defines it, was rejected by key extremist Zion-Cons in the Pentagon (Feith), the Vice President’s office (Irving Libby), the National Security Council (Elliott Abrams and the President’s National Security Adviser (Stephen Hadley, a zealous Gentile Zion-Con among the brotherhood). The Zion-cons paint a picture of an air attack which would simultaneously blow up all Iranian nuclear research facilities, infrastructure, airfields, military bases and ports… preventing any and all Iranian counter attacks against US strategic interests in the region. They further embellish their totalitarian vision by arguing that the Islamic republic would be overthrown by a populace grateful to the Americans for bombing their country, destroying its infrastructure and killing thousands. The Neo-Cons’ infantile delusions then lead them to project the emergence of a pro-Western Iranian secular state favorable to American occupation of the Middle East and, of course, wholeheartedly renouncing any ‘existential’ threats to the ‘survival’ of its new ally, Israel.

On the issue of the consequences of an attack on Iran, the US military is totally at odds with the Israeli-ZPC propaganda. Senior military officials based on real estimates on the ground and from hard data from intelligence experts, estimate that Iran will be in a position to retaliate and cause enormous immediate and long-term damage to strategic US and global interests. CENTCOM estimates that Iran will set-off air to sea missiles aimed at the US fleet stationed in the Persian Gulf and land-to-land missiles destroying oil production sites in the Gulf States, creating a major world oil shortage, doubling oil prices and provoking a world recession as energy scarcities paralyze production. Secondly, the Iranians will send several tens of thousands of its elite forces across the border into Iraq, joining with its Iraqi Shia allies to overrun US bases and endanger the lives of the 160,000 US troops currently in Iraq. This would undermine the entire Iraq war effort, inflicting a strategic defeat and further undermine US military capacity in the Middle East and elsewhere.

Thirdly the Iranians will be able to easily block the Strait of Hormuz so that one third of the Middle East’s oil shipments will be paralyzed.

Fourthly, military intelligence estimates that Iranian ‘sleeper cells’ in Asia, Africa, Europe and perhaps in North America will be activated and engage in ‘big impact’ terrorist missions. Whatever the likelihood of this scenario, it is clear that the US military anticipates major protests and perhaps even the violent overthrow of its clients in the Middle East, if not elsewhere.

Zion-Cons have neither countered military intelligence estimates with any credible counter-facts, nor even seriously considered the likely disastrous consequences affecting the US, Europe and Asia: They only consider Israel’s ‘security’ and its regional ambitions. No Zionophile or Zion-Con has considered the enormous costs in terms of US lives and damage to the fragile economy and society of a full scale third prolonged war. In effect, the Zion-cons will kill their own US goose, which has laid golden eggs for Israel for almost 6 decades. It is an example of the Zion-Cons’ supreme arrogance and sense of their own power that they feel they can plunge the US into a Third Asian war which will devastate the US economy and cause world-wide energy scarcity, and still secure their yearly ‘tribute’ of $3 Billion Dollars foreign aid for Israel as well as guaranteeing oil for Israel by diverting it from the needs of American consumers and industries. It is clear that in doing a cost-benefit analysis on a US attack on Iran, Israeli and ZPC operatives have approvingly figured that the costs are on the US side of the ledger and the benefits are for the Israelis. Were it known, American public opinion might disapprove.

The main difference is that the US does not have a comparable Washington Power Configuration in Tel Aviv to influence Israeli policy to match the Jewish state’s Zionist Power Configuration which shapes and influences US Middle East policy.

Military-Zioncon: Punch and Counter-Punch

By the end of 2007 it is clear that the US military, led by CENTCOM Commander, Admiral William Fallon and Security of Defense Gates, have successfully, if temporarily contained the strenuous Israeli-Zion-Con military thrust to war. Though Gates backtracked under ZPC pressure and later denied that he had taken the military option ‘off the table’. In response, the Zion-Cons launched an end-around tactic by intensifying their efforts to impose a global economic blockade to strangle the Iranian economy. The Zionized White House has pressured and secured the whole-hearted support of Gordon Brown of Great Britain, and Sarkozy of France for a set of economic sanctions that will in effect rupture all dialog with the IAEA. This is the strategic goal of the Zion-Cons: no dialog, no diplomacy, and blockaded economy, ripe for Anglo-French-American bombing. The Zion-cons have shrewdly avoided a head on confrontation with Fallon and his allies. They recognize that a bruising battle in which they might expose their Fifth Column credentials and in which their ‘anti-Semitic’ slanders against a popular patriotic American general might backfire by finally arousing a silent, latent anti-Zionist majority to speak out. Since the military would be called upon to carry out the military option which it strongly opposes, the Zion-Cons turn to their automatic, rubber-stamp majority in the US Congress and especially their most zealous Zionists in the federal bureaucracy. Treasury Department functionary Levey has devoted all of his working time browbeating, banning and blacklisting any and all businesses and banks dealing directly or indirectly with Iran or its trading partners.

Judeo-Centrism: From Ghetto Defense to Imperial Ambitions

One of the driving forces of the Zionist Power Configuration’s accumulation of political power is their ability to totally displace pre-existing non-Zionist and anti-Zionist organizations from influence in the Jewish community over the past 60 years. Secondly the formation of the ZPC resulted from the unification and centralization of a vast array of disparate groups and local community organizations around a single dominant political issue: unconditional and total support for a foreign power, Israel, with a kind of intolerant religious fervor which in the past burnt dissenters in public displays of piety and today hounds them from public office. In the past and in the recent period, there was a popular Yiddish saying in evaluating public policy: ‘Is it good for the Jews?’ This narrow, parochial viewpoint had special meaning at a time when Jews were a persecuted minority trying to maximize their security and minimize risks in relatively closed societies. In recent times, in certain New York intellectual circles, it was part of a jocular repertoire designed at one and the same time to recall an earlier identity and to mock some of the overweening pretensions of new rich upstarts, especially real estate billionaires who displace and exploit low-income and minority tenants while making generous contributions to Israel.

But what was defensive and perhaps justified in an earlier era has become a deadly practice in the context of affluence, political power and organizational cohesion. A Judeocentric view of the world, which sees the embodiment of ‘what’s good for the Jews’ in providing unconditional support to an aggressive colonial state (Israel), has become a formula for disaster. In the new context where Jews represent almost a quarter of US billionaires and occupy high positions of government decision-making, the dominant Zionist discourse and practice has resulted not in defensive measures protecting a persecuted minority but offensive actions prejudicing the American majority. In the case of Iraq, it has led to the deaths of over a million Iraqi civilians and the displacement of many millions more. In the US it has resulted in milking the US taxpayers annually for well-over $3 billion dollars to subsidize an Israeli-Jewish population with an annual per capita income of $30,000 and universal health care. The Judeo-centric view as interpreted by the Israel-Firsters has led to the sacrifice of trillions of dollars and thousands of lives in Iraq. In the US, Judeocentric narrative has led to the denial of our democratic rights, our freedom to debate our Zionist problem, and the ZPC’s support for Israel’s pursuit of Middle East dominance through American military power. Judeocentrism is not the ideology or practice of the great majority of US Jews, even less a rising number of young, better-educated Jews with no deep ideological ties to Israel. But Judeocentrism is the perspective which guides the organized, active minority driving the major Zionist organizations and their billionaire camp followers. And it is always the organized, zealous and well-financed minority, which assumes ‘legitimate’ claim to speak ‘for the community’ — despite the protests of numerous un-organized Jewish intellectual critics.


The deepening and all-important conflict between the pro-Israel warmongers and the anti-war American senior officers is reaching a bitter climax. As the US military disintegrates under prolonged colonial warfare, the ZPC intensifies its campaign for a third war for Israel and against Iran, a war which will totally shatter the US military forces.

The fundamental question emerging for most senior officers, in private gatherings and informal discussions is ‘Who commands our Commander in Chief?’ The deep animosity of US senior active military officers frequently erupts at the ZPC’s careless and callous disregard for American lives. They disdainfully refer to the Zion-Con policymakers as ‘arm-chair military strategists’ who never fought a war, never shot or been shot. At one level, the senior military officers are appalled by the ignorance of the Zion-Con military ‘experts’ and policy-makers featured by the Zion-Con controlled mass media. One of the most frequent military criticisms is that the Zion-Con policy-makers don’t have an‘exit strategy’ – attributing it to their lack of knowledge or strategic thinking. In reality, the lack of Zion-Con concern for a realistic exit strategy is because the Zion-Cons are concerned (in light of Israel’s priorities) only with an entry policy, namely degrading the invaded countries’ military and economic potential. Secondly the Zion-Cons do not have an exit strategy because they believe the US should stay, colonize, build bases and engage in a prolonged war for a chimerical total victory.

The question of ‘who commands the Commander in Chief’ goes to the entire core of our constitutional order, because it raises the deeper question of ‘who defines the national interests’ for which the military are fighting? If as we have documented, the ZPC has effectively colonized the White House and Legislative Branches (and the Justice Department and the appointment of an ultra-Zionist Attorney General Michael Mulkasey and Israel-First Head of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff), to serve the interests of a foreign power (Israel) in what sense does a colonized political system serve the interests of a democratic public? Does there exist a primary condition that makes it possible to speak of a democracy, namely national self-determination, de-colonization necessary for the re-democratization of American political institutions?

So far the only effective resistance to colonization has comes from the US military. The military is a non-democratic, hierarchical institution but an institution representative of the public’s opposition to colonial encroachments.

What would normally be considered the prime movers challenging Zion-Con colonization, namely the President, Congress, the political parties or even the antiwar movements have abdicated their responsibilities — they have been in part or whole colonized and neutralized.

By default, it has fallen to senior military commanders who reject being commanded by the ZPC at the service of Israel. Paradoxically, it is the military, which has taken over the struggle against an offensive war with Iran, a struggle where the American peace movement has failed. It is the military, which has challenged the Zion-Con agenda, where the Congress has been corrupted and capitulated for reasons of campaign financing, political blackmail and double loyalty.

Where does that leave us, as democrats and anti-colonists?

We should be able to have both an independent de-colonized and democratic America, governed by patriotic Americans. But suppose we have to choose between de-colonization led by the military or a corrupt colonized electoral system – what should be done?

The ideal solution would be a revitalized civil society including secularist citizens, non-fundamentalist Muslims and Christians, and non-Zionist Jews, organized in an anti-war, anti-colonial movement and political parties allied with patriotic officers to ‘re-found the republic’. The purpose would be to establish a republic to ‘defend the heartland’ from fires, floods, economic pillage, terrorists, ecological predators and foreign agents acting on behalf of alien regimes. Can it happen? We shall see. What is becoming clear however is that the anti-colonial imperative is growing stronger by the day, if it doesn’t come from below, it may have to come from above.

34 comments on this article so far ...

Comments RSS feed

  1. gerald spezio said on December 1st, 2007 at 9:49am #

    Every word of James Petras’s outstanding scholarship in this powerful and prescient piece is worthy of our attention.

  2. George Jacobs said on December 1st, 2007 at 10:20am #

    I am amazed at the information contained in Mr. Petras’ article. The next question is what can be done to restore “America First”? Are there any news media, TV, Radio companies etc. that can be enlisted to get the message out to the public? Although the Zion-Cons (as you name them) have infiltrated some of the key positions in government, the last time I looked there are still more non-Zion-Cons than they. How do we get a movement going to correct this 60 year travesty.

    I am a second generation Lebanese and I have relatives who visit from the Middle East who have told me stories that I have never heard in any of the American Media. What you report is true. America has a right and an obligation to know the truth. Articles in the Dissident Voice “aint” going to change America.

    Good luck and keep informing us.

    George Jacobs

  3. jaime said on December 1st, 2007 at 10:55am #

    Nope. Take phrases like this:

    “…The ZPC-Israel Firsters’ Wars-For-Israel crowd did have all of these ‘resources’ in abundance, and they used them to the maximum in a spiteful and arrogant fashion…”

    Well he goes on and on and on about Zionists and US government and war, but he’s misread and misinterpreted everything.

    Petras is not reality-based.

    Anybody here heard about the Annapolis conference?


    Well for starters that’s not about Israel expansionism. But don’t let me change your minds…

  4. Ron Horn said on December 1st, 2007 at 12:29pm #

    Another very recent piece of evidence that shows that the Israeli’s and their Fifth Column U.S. Zionists largely control U.S. government foreign policies. Funny that I can’t find any information on this in the U.S. media:

  5. George Jacobs said on December 1st, 2007 at 1:40pm #

    Can’t find anything? I rest my case.

  6. jaime said on December 1st, 2007 at 1:52pm #


    “Another very recent piece of evidence that shows that the Israeli’s and their Fifth Column U.S. Zionists largely control U.S. government foreign policies.”

    The Haaretz areticle doesn’t say anything like that at all. You must be dreaming in technicolor.

    Fifth column what? ….

  7. D. Cohen said on December 1st, 2007 at 2:33pm #

    Just to get it out of the way: Annapolis, for those who were taken in, was “a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury and signifying nothing.” A day after the “summit” US Ambassador Khalilzad introduced a resolution to the Security Council, which was withdrawn less than 24 hours later, “endorsing this week’s agreement by Israeli and Palestinian leaders to try to reach a Mideast peace settlement by the end of 2008”, after Israel objected to it.

    Today, Israel Defense Minister Ehud Barak (he was the liberal Prime Minister not so many years ago) explained why it will be the Palestinian’s fault if this peace does not come about. At the same time Israel killed 8 Palestinians and Its supreme court gave the go ahead for cutting electricity in Gaza. Abbas said he will not recognize Israel as being the Jewish State. You see, we HAVE heard of Annapolis, about we READ the Israeli press.

    On Iran, I agree with Mr. Petra on everything except that Europeans don’t believe the disinformation. Angela Merkel, the German Chancellor who would have joined the coalition of the whatever in Iraq if she had a chance, but fortunately had not yet been elected at the time, is a huge Bush admirer and is now vying for George Bush’s love against Nicholas Sarkozy, the way she once vied for it against Tony Blair; and she will do what she has to, t0 get it. I think she believes the disinformation. And the fact that she heads a coalition government is meaningless, since the SPD party is no different that the Democrats in the US, and they will go with the flow. Sarkozy is on board anyway, he’d just as soon attack Iran today as tomorrow. And even if the public is not totally convinced, it is much easier to convince them from the top than from across the ocean. The Germans like a leader to guide them (the German word is Führer), they feel an obligation of guilt be an enabler of Israel – which Merkel visited twice – in whatever it does, and that migh include war against Iran. Sarkozy is an open and outspoken admirer of Zionism, and even British Prime Minister Gordon Brown has labeled himself a Zionist.

    The only good news – from the point of view of not rushing off to war – is, the economy stupid. The US is heading toward recession, or maybe not, nobody knows, Merkel just botched the relationship with China by inviting the Dalai Llama (what George can do Angie can do too…) the Chinese are furious with her and just signed a huge contract with the French, and German industry is not amused. It will be even less amused if there are really tough sanctions, not to mention a war, against Iran, with whom there are many industrial ties in Germany. The French have their big contact with China, Germany needs Russian gas, and the British are investing big time in Siberia, while everybody needs Chine. Kind of complicates things a little.

    Our problem, however, has another, imminent aspect. If the Democrats are going to continue on this course – which seems to be the case – do we have to just stand by helplessly? Whom can one support for the Presidency in a country which only has two parties which are actually one, and whose candidates seem to have no real understanding of the state of the Middle East and the precarious situation the world is in? Do we turn away and say the hell with it, let the others vote? Or do we just keep watching “reality TV”?

  8. Max Shields said on December 1st, 2007 at 2:34pm #

    gerald spezio “Every word of James Petras’s outstanding scholarship in this powerful and prescient piece is worthy of our attention.”

    Is this said out of some kind of fact checking/verification. I can agree with what I understand about a situation, but this sounds supiciously hyperbolic.

    jaime your propaganda is even more far fetched.

  9. hp said on December 1st, 2007 at 2:54pm #

    Annapolis? Ha! Ha! Ha!
    Good one Jaime!
    The “middle east peace process” taken off site for a change of what?

  10. Deadbeat said on December 1st, 2007 at 5:45pm #

    Is this said out of some kind of fact checking/verification. I can agree with what I understand about a situation, but this sounds supiciously hyperbolic.

    Can you provide arguments where Petra’s information is inaccurate or hyperbolic or is that just your way of attacking the information with the ploy of dismissiveness and the fallacy of the middle ground.

  11. Max Shields said on December 1st, 2007 at 6:00pm #

    “Can you provide arguments where Petra’s information is inaccurate or hyperbolic or is that just your way of attacking the information with the ploy of dismissiveness and the fallacy of the middle ground.”

    My comment had noting to do with middle ground, or the validity of Petras’s post. It had to do with the yin/yang embrace of gerald spezio and jaime. In both cases Petras is really a foil.

  12. Neal said on December 1st, 2007 at 9:10pm #

    Well, today’s New York Times disputes what is stated here. It has Iran giving the finger to European negotiators. See

    One has to ask, since the Petras article has no imaginable explanation, if Israelis do not really think that Iran is looking to build a bomb, what does Israel get out of an attack on Iran? Not much. In fact, they stand to lose a lot. Which is to say, the premise of the article is idiotic.

    As the Petra article admits, a war would kill the source of the golden egg for Israel. So, on his theory, the Israelis would risk all to destroy a non-existent threat. Sorry, Mr. Petras. The Israelis are not morons and neither are their friends.

    Again on Petras’ loony theory, the Israelis favor a war to attack an imaginary enemy – one that, according to Mr. Petras, says only that it wants the end of Israel, not its being wiped off the map (as if that were a real difference) – . And, he admits that the likely impact of such a war would be to harm Israel both physically and economically and politically. Is he a moron? Or, is he a bigot who is controlled by his own bigotry?

    Sorry to say, I do not think that Israelis are idiots. I do not think Israel’s friends in the US and Europe are idiots. I think that there are honest differences of opinions and Mr. Petras is too bigoted to understand that people have honest differences of opinion. So, he creates a devil, in the tradition of Antisemitic bigots.

    This magazine should be ashamed of itself for posting a bigoted article that makes no sense, on its own terms. Again: the Israelis and their friends would have to be idiots to favor what Mr. Petras claims. They are not idiots. The article is 1930’s era vintage bigotry. It should be removed.

  13. Ron Horn said on December 2nd, 2007 at 10:17am #

    Here we go again, the Neo-Con trolls scream anti-semitism and engage in name calling whenever anyone challenges their conspiracies to undermine the fundamental interests of the American people to live in peace with the rest of the world according to principles of the UN and international law. Dr. Petras has done a masterful job of assembling evidence and arguments to show that this domestic Fifth Column exists not to serve the interests of the American people, but rather the imperialist aims of the U.S. ruling class and their Neo-Con allies here and in Israel.

  14. Neal said on December 2nd, 2007 at 11:27am #

    Mr. Horn,

    I note that you do not even try to grapple with what is written in the article.

    The evidence cited in the article contradicts itself. To cut to the chase: why would Israel manipulate the US to pursue a course of action against a country not near to Israel in a manner likely to undermine Israel’s relationship with the US? To what end? Nothing in the article can explain that problem, because there is no logical explanation that is consistent with the facts – even the facts cited in the article.

    Again: the magazine should be ashamed of itself for posting a bigoted article that would fit better in the world of 1930’s era Germany.

  15. Mulga Mumblebrain said on December 2nd, 2007 at 4:00pm #

    I’m afraid Jaime finally seems deluded. The only babies and sick people dying are those in Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia and Gaza, where Zionist policy to demonise Moslems and destroy their countries, in order to establish Israeli hegemony, has caused multiple humanitarian catastrophes. Undoubtedly the Zionist plans for regional dominance are meeting greater resistance, not only from the heroic people of Gaza, Southern Lebanon and Iraq, but from most of the other countries of the world, as expressed in the UN General Assembly, and within the USA itself. Hence the increasingly hysterical tone of Zionist wailing, to be expected from Jaime, but which seems even to have infected Neal’s apologias for Israeli crimes, previously dispassionate in their casuistic revisions of history and the facts. For Neal to now be demanding the censorship of Petras’ lucid expositions of the facts, utilising the usual smears of ‘anti-Semitism’ and bigotry(talk about the pot calling the kettle black) shows the growing desperation of the Zionists who have bitten off more than they can chew, possibly through believing their own racist denigrations of Moslems and Arabs. It is crucial that the Ziocon tendency be defanged now, not only to protect the people of Iran, and rescue those of Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine etc, but to derail the next phase of Ziocon power mania-the coming confrontation with China. The portents are plain that the Zionists, having gained control, in perpetuity they seem to believe, over the world’s superpower, are determined to prevent the rise of another world power, particularly one where Jews do not dominate business, the media and politics to the extent they do in the US. The Chinese are, indeed, unfit for world leadership as they are not representatives of that incomparable Judeo-Christian Western Civilisation that has brought the people of the world so many, many blessings. Even more threatening all the faery stories about Moses, Abraham and Jesus are, for them, merely interesting fables of another people. The despicably hypocritical machinations over Darfur, coming from people who ignore the vastly greater suffering in the Congo, and who were responsible for the vastly worse depradations in Iraq, is partly aimed, as ever, at demonising Moslems, but is also being used, with cynical hypocrisy, to target China. We can expect much more of the same, accompanied by the familiar pretensions of moral superiority, in the future.

  16. dan elliott said on December 2nd, 2007 at 7:24pm #

    I think we’re starting to get to this “neal” character: he’s getting more & more shrill, less & less veneer of plausibility. Calling Dr Petras a bigot whose writing belongs in Hitler’s Germany? Seems a lil over the top to me.


  17. Espresso said on December 3rd, 2007 at 12:03pm #

    >> ‘One has to ask, since the Petras article has no imaginable explanation, if Israelis do not really think that Iran is looking to build a bomb, what does Israel get out of an attack on Iran? Not much. In fact, they stand to lose a lot. Which is to say, the premise of the article is idiotic. ”

    – Possibly because Israel just lost an embarrassing war to Hezbollah in Lebanon. Hezbollah’s missle range keeps getting longer and eventually will do more significant damage when Israel decides it wants to frivolously bomb Lebanon’s infrastructure again.

    – “Friends of Israel” have strategically positioned hundreds of thousands of American troops in the region (in Iraq), and now would be a good time to use those American forces to ensure Israel complete dominance and supremacy in the region, by annhialating the next biggest nemesis (and financer of Hezbollah), Iran.

    Once Iran goes the way of Iraq, Israel can pretty much have its way with the Palestinians, Lebanon, Syria, etc. as the money flow will stop.

  18. Neal said on December 3rd, 2007 at 12:51pm #


    You propose that Israel wants to go after Iran in order to get at Hezbollah’s missiles. There is a logic to that theory although it is a completely different one than is suggested by Mr. Petras.

    In fact, if you are correct, then Mr. Petras is wrong in that he postulates that Israel is essentially making up the threat from Iran. On your theory, that is not so.

    It seems to me, your theory also suffers from the problem that Israel would be risking an awful lot in order to affect Hezbollah’s behavior when, in fact, Hezbollah’s behavior is already constrained, at this point, by Lebanese politics which will not tolerate Hezbollah dragging the country into another dispute with Israel. And, there is the further problem that Israel would, if the issue is missiles, not accomplish anything by attacking Iran because missiles can be obtained by Hezbollah from any of a number of sources.

    So, Israel would, in order to win a Pyrrhic victory, risk its relationship with the US to have it attack far away Iran, with Hezbollah left OK and with the ability to obtain missiles anyway.

    If Israel wants the US to help it deal with Hezbollah, why not propose that the US go after Hezbollah directly? That would be more consistent, following your theory that the concern is Hezbollah.

  19. Espresso said on December 3rd, 2007 at 1:55pm #

    It’s more in line with stopping the flow of money to Israel’s adversaries. Iran’s danger to Israel is due to its proxy nature. They are indirectly keeping those who oppose Israel armed and funded (Hamas, Hezbollah).

    With Iraq and perhaps Iran devastated by bombing and in ruins, Israel would be the ONLY power in the region. It could dictate its settlement to the Palestinians as there would be no adversarial force that could fund the groups that could resist the occupation.

  20. Neal said on December 3rd, 2007 at 2:55pm #


    Israel would not be a major power in the Gulf even if Iran were wiped off the map. The Gulf is too far from Israel and Israel lacks the population – not to mention navy – to project and sustain military power in the Gulf. So, that idea makes no sense.

    The US, however, would have that exact benefit if Iran’s influence were reduced – assuming, of course, that such could be sustained, which is very doubtful. But, your new theory, once again, shows clearly that Mr. Petras is entirely wrong, if we assume that your theory is correct. Which is to say, the US does its own bidding for its own benefit, as it is the US which has more to gain.

    Moreover, there are numerous powerful countries nearby that would have more influence than Israel in the Gulf, were Iran to cease being powerful. Think Pakistan. Think Turkey. Think India. Think Saudi Arabia.

    And, Hezbollah has numerous funding sources, not just Iran. And, in due course, Hezbollah would make up any losses suffered. So, yours is not really a plausible theory to explain Israel’s concerns about Iran.

    It is, however, better than that of Mr. Petras.

  21. Espresso said on December 3rd, 2007 at 4:12pm #

    You just talked around my point. I’m talking about Hamas/Hezbollah and their sponsor, Iran. Israel has one of the most powerful militaries in the world. Their only threatening nemises at the turn of the century were Iraq and Iran. If they can ensure that Iran is rendered defenseless before Bush’s term ends they’d be the ONLY dominant power in the REGION.

    Israel could dictate its terms to the Palestinians, Hezbolloah would be weakened, and Syria would even be weakened. You haven’t disproven this theory, just talked around it “i.e. not having the population to police the Gulf with troops”. That point is irrelevant to what Israel is trying to accomplish (land acquisition, and uncontested dominance in the region)

    You might find this link interesting. It show Kyl / Lieberman / and Clinton as three of the top 5 recipients of Israel Lobby money. Ever hear of “Kyl Lieberman” and wonder about Hillary’s support of it:

    Top Recipients of Israel Lobby:

    1. Lieberman, Joe (I-CT) Senate $1,204,890

    2. Cardin, Ben (D-MD) Senate $441,373

    3. Clinton, Hillary (D-NY) Senate $328,873

    4. Nelson, Bill (D-FL) Senate $327,941

    5. Kyl, Jon (R-AZ) Senate $310,596

  22. Shabnam said on December 3rd, 2007 at 7:27pm #

    We appreciate Mr. Petras’ article on Iran to inform Americans and the world to oppose any strike, economic or military, on Iran. To portrait Iranian president as Hitler is not new to the Zionist -imperialist forces. They used the same lies and deception for the Egyptian president, Gamal Abdel Nasser a secular and nationalist leader in 1956, and they called him Hitler to demonize a leader because he wanted to control Suez canal, in order to carry out a vicious plan for their expansionist policy when British and French colluded with Israelis who launched an attack on the canal zone to give the Anglo-French force a pretext to go in.
    They also used insulting and threatening language and misinformation campaign which was carried out by the Western media to remove Mossadeq, a nationalist, who was democratically elected as prime minister of Iran, by a CIA-backed coup when he nationalized Iran’s oil.
    The 1979 overthrow of the Shah created inconvenience for Israel and America. The Shah supplied all Israel’s oil needs via a pipeline from Eilat. After the revolution, Iranian government put an end to this program and Israel was forced to buy more expensive oil. In the 1980’s, Israel’s National Infrastructure Minister Joseph Paritzky was considering the possibility of reopening an oil pipeline from Mosul to port of Haifa in northern Israel. Syria, agreed to a request from Iran to block the flow of Iraqi oil to the Mediterranean and therefore the plan was postponed. The Iraq war has improved Israel chance greatly to have access to Iraqi oil.
    As Mr. Petras has pointed out the Zionist force and its associates have presented Iran as a threat to world peace through disinformation, accusation without substance to pursue its Middle East policy based on Zionist lobby’s script which has received opposition from American people and even some faction of elites in the military and beyond.
    Those who are pro Israel claim that without Israel’s military prowess, the US exploitation of resources ultimately is threatened, or some claim Israel strength is an asset for the United States and without that asset the situation gets worse compare to the present situation. This explanation suggests continuation with no critics for support of Israel which is not beneficial to American people. These people, contrary to John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, want us to believe Israel is an asset not liability.
    If the empire is so depended on Israeli prowess in the Middle East then why the empire does not want to use its status to create more assets like Israel not to be black mailed by the lone “asset”? Why the empire does not want to work with its natural ally, Iran, to increase competition not to allow one state to dominant the Middle East Policy through its Zionist Power Configuration? Why the empire does create so many obstacles for its natural ally over a century, Iran, to help the Zionist’s plan in the Middle East by waging war against countries with over 3000 years of civilization and try to disintegrate these countries through misinformation and lies and deception to create satellite states for an illegitimate state?
    Americans and Iranian people do not want war, they have said it repeatedly. Those who Push for another Zionist war, like Norman podhoretz and Joe Lieberman, are interested in Israel’s expansionist plan and not American people interest. As the following video shows, American people are opposing to any aggression against Iran.

    With the New information from the National Intelligence Estimate on Iran, where they have reached to the same conclusion which Iran has said repeatedly that Iran has no Nuclear Weapon Program and, therefore, Bush must back off and implement a policy that benefits American people interest and not the Zionist aggressive policy towards Iran, Palestine, Lebanon, Sudan, and other countries in the region.

    The Zionists not only have wiped Palestine off the map but also have wiped Iran off the INTERNATIONAL DIALING CODES. Please do not buy calendars which put Iran OFF THE MAP.
    Mr. Petras is not a bigot, rather a scholar who tries to present facts against lies and deception and remove the veil of ignorance which has fed the interest of Zionism for the past 60 years.

  23. Ron Horn said on December 3rd, 2007 at 10:59pm #

    Mr. Neal

    You disingenuously try to separate the U.S. ruling class from that of Israel’s in order to confuse the issue. You should re-read Petras’ article. With many Israel Firsters inside the U.S. establishment, Israel’s ruling class clearly exercises nearly overwhelming control over both the Executive branch and the Congress and they know it. Many of them have duel citizenship. Hence they use U.S.’s wealth, arms, and military to further its aims to completely dominate the Middle East. They obviously can’t do this by themselves. The Israelis with the most modern weapons and air force ( thanks to U.S. taxpayers) in the world can’t even hold their own against a poorly armed group like Hezbollah . They excel only at bulldozing Palestinian homes and shooting stone throwing Palestinian kids. The non-Israel Firsters among the U.S. ruling class are easily seduced by bribes and visions of world domination to go along with this mad project.

    I think there are grounds to believe that Israelis and the Israel Firsters in the U.S. are a bunch of morons because they seem to think that they can get away with this indefinitely. The American people are waking up and when they finally get up off their asses, the Israel Firsters may start to reconsider their commitment to Israel.

  24. Harmoon said on December 4th, 2007 at 12:05am #

    “Benjamin Netanyahu, whom the U.S. Congress customarily treats with the kind of deference it might reserve for a Lincoln returned from the dead, warned senators and congressmen that Saddam was developing nukes that could be delivered in suitcases and satchels, and Shimon Peres told Americans that Saddam was as dangerous as bin Laden. The lobbying was so blatant that some political consultants warned Israel to cool it, lest Americans come to believe that the war in Iraq was waged “to protect Israel rather than to protect America.”

  25. Mulga Mumblebrain said on December 4th, 2007 at 4:08am #

    Neal speaks of the possibility of Hezbollah dragging Lebanon into another dispute with Israel, by which I infer he is stating it was Hezbollah that instigated the 2006 fracas. If we needed further proof that Neal was not left, neglected, behind the door, when the chutzpah was being handed out, here it is. At the time of the outbreak of conflict it was widely reported that the capture of Israeli troops was made after an Israeli incursion into Lebanon. This story soon disappeared to be replaced by the usual lurid tales of Hezbollah perfidy. This did not sit well, however, with the appearance in various Israeli journals, and elsewhere, of stories of Israeli officials having briefed US officials, particularly at the Pentagon, for quite sometime beforehand, concerning their plans to attack Lebanon and destroy Hezbollah. Indeed Israeli officials were quoted as saying this was the best prepared war Israel had ever launched. Within days, as Israel devastated Lebanon from the air, with that elan and bravado one has come to expect from all the death-dealers of Western Civilization as they bomb with impunity the scuttling, fleeing, untermenschen beneath, clearly aiming to provoke sectarian strife within Lebanon as has been their wont for decades, the Israeli Ambassador to the UN was able to boast, before a braying pro-Israel mob, of just that ‘disproportionality’ that the rest of the world, the civilised world, condemned. Unfortunately, despite yeoman service in destroying homes, schools, mosques, petrol stations, fleeing civilians and ambulances, when the stout Israelis met Hezbollah, mano a mano, so to speak, the despicable rag-heads refused to be cowed. Years of training in the manly arts of shooting children in the head, forcing old men to urinate on one another at checkpoints and terrorising old ladies, had left the quaintly misnamed Israel Defence Force unprepared to face armed, valiant opposition. So, in further tribute to that Western Civilization that is the envy of all the swarthy races, the Israelis scattered South Lebanon with millions of cluster bomblets, in yet another unparalleled display of their legendary ‘moral purity’. Everyone who can read knows the history, but the Israel-Firsters are nothing if not enthusiastic in their rewriting of history. As ever, Israel is always the innocent victim, at least when propagandising the ignorant dolts of Middle America who know nothing but that God gave Israel to the Jews, so there! I’m sorry Neal, but your resort to such flagrant meddling with the facts puts all your other assertions even further into the territory of wishful thinking, or hasbara if you want to get technical.

  26. Mike McNiven said on December 8th, 2007 at 5:32pm #

    Thank you Professor Petras!

    The anti-imperialist Iranians who overthrew the puppet shah have positions from which we can learn a lot more:

  27. Robert said on February 24th, 2008 at 1:45pm #

    Very enlightening Mr. Petras article.- But, what can be decided to correct the course with a constituency of “bad-wisered” macerated dolts under the permanent ABC, CBS, ABC, Warner and Disney cathode-ray diffusion? (All american information is jewish controlled).-
    How many voters remember that Richard Nixon wanted to make an American National Party,to establish a control on TV media and hand
    over a nuclear reactor to the arabs? No wonder what costed him the presidency!

  28. Robert said on February 24th, 2008 at 2:02pm #

    Either Dems. or Reps. candidates are placidly swimming to November
    in an ocean of jewish money and supervision, as soon as any one is going off the “tracks”, slightly showing some disapproval of zionistic
    policies, will no longer have access to TV, will no longer have interviews
    and from then subject to a brivery or sex scandal.- You can recall that the Lewinsky show was staged because at the same time it was discovered that Israel had a spy in the White House.-

  29. Robert said on February 24th, 2008 at 2:19pm #

    Very few folks do realize that, the more power the AIPAC lobby obtains
    the worst becomes his everyday struggle for living. Less social benefits
    as welfare money goes to keep going the Irak-Afghan war, less jobs as imported stuff from China has bankrupt a wide industrial spectrum. Less
    gas from the same money as a direct consequence of the unfair one-sided US support of the Israel design on the Palestinian issue. More to
    pay for health care and medicine to jewish controlled labs, Hospitals and insurance providers, more interest to pay to jewish controlled banks and less freedom in Internet from a Jewish patronized control.

  30. Robert said on February 24th, 2008 at 2:34pm #

    To those that still doubt about the seriousness of Mr. Petras article or that minimize the jewish running of American affairs, they must take into account that JFK made clear to Ben Gurion that the US would not
    tolerate Israel having nuclear devices, as he knew that Israel was making his experimental nuclear explosions in CHINA. SO TO SPEAK,
    CLEAR is that China had and has a very well done arrangement with
    Israel that today -through the WTO- is leaving without jobs millions
    of americans, JFK is dead and Israel has nuclear warheads.

  31. Robert said on February 24th, 2008 at 2:58pm #

    A bipartisan president is the same of a dictatorship, the only difference is that is elected among a couple “koshered” beforehand. True democracy is a long way behind in american history, belonging to the early 13 colony times, now recolonized, hardly things may turn to the right path, unless a new venue in politics can give people a direct assembly right instead of being run by a “privatized” administratition.-
    As money unconstitutionally is being issued and lent to US GVMT by
    the Jewish FED. RES. Military will be replaced by private Blackwaters
    in the near future. US Military take notice.

  32. Robert said on February 24th, 2008 at 3:33pm #

    The “promised globe” is better than the “promised land”, so global control is the final goal in the aim of the knesset.- So if any hopes are nestled by the Iranians they just have look at the face of Condolezza to see how “dark” the prospect can be of having a reasonable deal on their
    nuclear program.- Right after the Camp David agreements the US planned a total support of Israel, even Diego Garcia Base was part of the
    plan, and the target was and is to keep and secure the East Bank and Jerusalem within jewish sovereignity, to the extent of eliminating any opposition or arab nation.
    Saddam Scuds hitting Tel-Aviv only needed a better warhead to change
    the plot. So Irak was sacrificed just in case it could have WMD.
    Therefore, as not to have it again, Iran is to be nuked as soon as possible as it can not combine a missile and a warhead able to change the negotiation table to more even terms.

  33. Robert said on February 24th, 2008 at 3:53pm #

    There are very many reasonable officers within the Armed Forces of the U.S. and those that in the past gave of warning on the Jewish meddling of american policies: Adm. Crommelin, Gen George Brown,
    and Adm. Moorer.- Today, the fact the Pentagon waged a war, massacrated a million people and looted their only asset under a false cause should have given second thoughts on the right to keep on fighting under the banner of the wrong, which is not the American flag,
    to many in the services.-

  34. wingless said on May 29th, 2008 at 11:42am #

    Mumblebrain said:
    ” did not sit well, however, with the appearance in various Israeli journals, and elsewhere, of stories of Israeli officials having briefed US officials, particularly at the Pentagon, for quite sometime beforehand, concerning their plans to attack Lebanon and destroy Hezbollah. ”

    My reply:
    I LOVE IT! And they were going to invade Lebanon for what? Were they short on blood to make Matzah? Or do you have some more enlightenment on the Jewish conspiracy to take over the world???

    WHERE DO YOU COME UP WITH THIS GARBAGE? Several Israeli journals said this? That’s interesting as I regularly read “Palestinian” Arab, Jordanian, Syrian, Lebanese and even Hezbollah’s (Al-Manar) news, as well as Israeli news… What you are stating is utter and total rubbish.

    “God gave Israel to the Jews, so there! ”

    Zionism a secular movement. The early Zionists who built the kibbutz were ardent inclusionary Marxists.

    As for religion, it plays no part in ZIonism.

    And just so I cover this (for information sake). As for the religious angle:
    Both the Koran and Old Testament make the exact same claim about the Jews and the Promised Land of Israel:

    From the Koran:
    [5:20] Recall that Moses said to his people (the Jews, the Tribes of Israel), “O my people, remember GOD’s blessings upon you: He appointed prophets from among you, made you kings, and granted you what He never granted any other people.
    [5:21] “O my people, enter the holy land (Israel) that GOD has decreed for you, and do not rebel, lest you become losers.”

    See my blog for a covering of this and other verses.