Behind The Plan To Bomb Iran
Full credit for the original article must be given to Ismael Hossein-zadeh and The Asia Times for originally publishing this article on August 31, 2006, in their SPEAKING FREELY section. The original article can be found here.
I've reproduced the copy here, so that I could add my comments in context, and also add links to support my comments. Absolutely NO original words, not in bold, have been altered. Obviously, I already agree with most of the article, and only wish to add information that takes the article another step closer to solving mankind's biggest threat to peace. Let's get started.
It is no longer a secret that the administration of US President George W Bush has been methodically paving the way toward a bombing strike against Iran. The administration's plans of an aerial military attack against that country have recently been exposed by a number of reliable sources. [1] AGREE!
There is strong evidence that the US administration's recent public statements that it is now willing to negotiate with Iran are highly disingenuous: they are designed not to reach a diplomatic solution to the so-called "Iran crisis", but to remove diplomatic hurdles toward a military "solution". AGREE!
The administration's public gestures of a willingness to negotiate with Iran are rendered utterly meaningless because such alleged negotiations are premised on the condition that Iran suspends its uranium-enrichment program. AGREE!
Considering the fact that suspension of uranium enrichment, which is altogether within Iran's legitimate rights under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, is supposed to be the main point of negotiations, Iran is asked, in effect, "to concede the main point of the negotiations before they started". [2] AGREE!
The Bush administration's case against Iran is eerily reminiscent of its case against Iraq in the run-up to the invasion of that country. Accordingly, the case against Iran is based not on any hard evidence provided by the International Atomic Energy Agency, but on dubious allegations that are based on even more dubious sources of intelligence. Iran is asked, in effect, to prove a negative, which is of course mission impossible - hence grounds for "non-compliance" and the rationale for "punishment". AGREE!
The US administration's case against Iran is so weak, its objectives of a military strike against that country are so fuzzy, and the odds against achieving any kind of meaningful victory are so strong that even professional military experts are speaking up against the plans of a bombing campaign against Iran. [3] Furthermore, predominant expert views of such a bombing campaign maintain that it would more likely hurt than help the geopolitical and economic interests of the United States. AGREE!
So if the Bush administration's "national interests" argument as grounds for a military strike against Iran is suspect, why then is it so adamantly pushing for such a potentially calamitous confrontation? What are the driving forces behind a military confrontation with Iran? AGREE!
Critics would almost unanimously point to neo-conservative militarists in and around the Bush administration. While this is obviously not false, as it is the neo-conservative forces that are beating the drums of war with Iran, it falls short of showing the whole picture. In a real sense, it raises the question: Who are the neo-conservatives to begin with? And what or whom do they represent? AGREE!
The neo-conservative ideologues often claim that their aggressive foreign policy is inspired primarily by democratic ideals and a desire to spread democracy and freedom worldwide - a claim that is far too readily accepted as genuine by corporate media and many foreign-policy circles. This is obviously little more than a masquerade designed to hide some real powerful special interests that lie behind the facade of neo-conservative figures and their ideological rhetoric. AGREE!
The driving force behind the neo-conservatives' war juggernaut must be sought not in the alleged defense of democracy or of national interests but in the nefarious special interests that are carefully camouflaged behind the front of national interests. These special interests derive lucrative business gains and high dividends from war and militarism. They include both economic interests (famously known as the military-industrial complex) and geopolitical interests (associated largely with Zionist proponents of "Greater Israel" in the Middle East, or the Israeli lobby). AGREE!
There is an unspoken, de facto alliance between these two extremely powerful interests - an alliance that might be called the military-industrial-Zionist alliance. More than anything else, the alliance is based on a conjunctural convergence of interests on war and international convulsion in the Middle East. I DO NOT AGREE!
You must look for who OWNS the military-industrial-Zionist alliance. It is NO alliance. WHO controls the military supply corporations? WHO controls the major industrial corporations? WHO uses the Zionist beliefs as a willing shield and cover? Then YOU will know our real enemy! If Jews were really behind these wars, why would they marry Catholics??? The WHO behind the scenes only claim to be Jewish, so they can use Jewish innocents as a cover and a shield. (No, I am not Jewish, nor of Jewish parents.)
Let me elaborate on this point.
The fact that the military-industrial complex, or merchants of arms and wars, flourishes on war and militarism is largely self-evident. Arms industries and powerful beneficiaries of war dividends need an atmosphere of war and international convulsion to maintain continued increases in the Pentagon budget and justify their lion's share of the public money. Viewed in this light, unilateral or "preemptive" wars abroad can easily been seen as reflections of domestic fights over national resources and tax dollars. AGREE!Yes, but who CONTROLS those merchants of arms? Find them and you'll find your real enemy.
In the debate over allocation of public resources between the proverbial guns and butter, or between military and non-military public spending, powerful beneficiaries of war dividends have proved very resourceful in outmaneuvering proponents of limits on military spending. AGREE!
During the bipolar world of the Cold War era, that was not a difficult act to perform as the rationale - the "communist threat" - readily lay at hand. Justification of increased military spending in the post-Cold War period has prompted these beneficiaries to be even more creative in manufacturing "new sources of danger to US interests" to justify unilateral wars of aggression. It is not surprising, then, that a wide range of "new sources of threat to US national interests" has emerged in the wake of the collapse of the Soviet Union: "rogue states", "axis of evil", global terrorism, Islamic radicalism, "enemies of democracy", and more. AGREE!
However, US interests controlled by whom? Certainly not to those here in the States. Sad to say, but we are simply one of many "fronts," and have been for over a hundred years.
Just as the powerful beneficiaries of war dividends view international peace and stability as inimical to their business interests, so too the hardline Zionist proponents of "Greater Israel" perceive peace between Israel and its Arab neighbors perilous to their goal of gaining control over the "Promised Land" of Israel. The reason for this fear of peace is that, according to a number of United Nations resolutions, peace would mean Israel's return to its pre-1967 borders; that is, withdrawal from the West Bank and Gaza Strip. AGREE!
What better shield (or cover) for "psychopaths with attaches" [Snakes in Suits] than a religion based on a psychopath. I don't hate the Jews, I pity them. [By pity, I mean "compassion for suffering."]
Disinformation must be 90% correct to be effective. Abraham more than likely did what he did, and things happened perhaps as written. The only 10% that's a lie is his claim that GOD told him to do this. Perhaps Abraham believed he heard GOD's voice, just like the highly-religious woman who killed her five biblically-named children in Texas fairly recently. It's not about whether God exists or not; it's about ONE man CLAIMING God talked to him, and all others back then whose land Abraham claimed, did not hear those conversation.
But because proponents of "Greater Israel" are unwilling to withdraw from these territories, they are fearful of peace and genuine dialogue with Palestinians - hence their continued disregard of UN resolutions and their systematic efforts at sabotaging peace negotiations. By the same token, these proponents view war and convulsion (or, as David Ben-Gurion, one of the key founders of the State of Israel, put it, "revolutionary atmosphere") as opportunities that are conducive to the expulsion of Palestinians, to the territorial recasting of the region, and to the expansion of Israel's territory. [4] AGREE!
But one must remember that "GREATER ISRAEL" is a lie, too. Those who control the military suppliers; those who control the major corporations; those who control the major religions! have only one goal: to own the whole earth in fee-simple. And its been in progress for over 400 years. These psychopaths have no-conscience, and since they are empty, nothing will ever fulfill them. Each damned generation of these men try, but they will still be empty, even when they do own the whole earth in fee-simple. Then the few that's left will destroy each other, and we have to start all over again, if anyone survives.
The military-industrial-Zionist alliance is represented largely by the cabal of neo-conservative forces in and around the Bush administration. The institutional framework of the alliance consists of a web of closely knit think-tanks that are founded and financed primarily by the armaments lobby and the Israeli lobby. These corporate-backed militaristic think-tanks include the American Enterprise Institute, Center for Security Policy, Middle East Media Research Institute, Washington Institute for Near East Policy, Middle East Forum, National Institute for Public Policy and the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs. AGREE!
You know, growing up [I'm now 59] I used to believe that the cream rose to the top. The best of the best, if you will. However, seeing what's happened to the world in the last 40 years, I now realize that most of the good has been drained, and there's not much left but the scum.
These think-tanks, which might appropriately be called institutes of war and militarism, are staffed and directed mainly by the neo-conservative champions of the military-industrial-Zionist alliance, that is, by the proponents of unilateral wars of aggression. There is strong evidence that the major plans of the Bush administration's foreign policy have been drawn up largely by these think-tanks, often in collaboration, directly or indirectly, with the Pentagon, the arms lobby, and the Israeli lobby. These warmongering think-tanks and their neo-conservative champions serve as direct links, or conveyer belts, between the armaments and Israeli lobbies on the one hand, and the Bush administration and its congressional allies on the other. AGREE!
But consider how they get paid. Where does the money REALLY come from? Sure, you can say our government. But our government is bankrupt. Who is continuing to finance these efforts, for what real reasons, and when are they going to turn off the tap. This is EXACTLY what caused the credit collapse of the Soviet Union a few years back, and now THEY have full control on its resources, using Putin and his hirelings to do the dirty work. Do you really think Putin has any real power not given to him by these same people that are maneuvering to control everything else?
Take the Center for Security Policy (CSP), for example. It boasts that "no fewer than 22 former advisory board members are close associates in the Bush administration ... A sixth of the center's revenue comes directly from defense corporations." The center's alumni in key posts in the Bush administration include its former chair of the board, Douglas Feith, who served for more than four years as under secretary of defense for policy, Pentagon comptroller Dov Zakheim, former Defense Policy Board chair Richard Perle, and longtime friend and financial supporter Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. AGREE!
You're getting the team right, but we need to understand who OWNS and CONTROLS the team. They do NOT control their own destiny, but are simply hirelings. Sure, they're paid well. Those who sell their souls usually are highly paid, not as a result of making things better for others, but for draining off financial resources to put those corporations into debt. This means those corporations are "sold out", or "mortgaged" to the PUPPETMASTERS. That's were our pensions went.
In its 1998 annual report, the center "listed virtually every weapons-maker that had supported it from its founding, from Lockheed, Martin Marietta, Northrop, Grumman and Boeing, to the later 'merged' incarnations of same - Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, and so forth". [5] AGREE! Some team, huh?!
Likewise, the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), a major lobbying think-tank for the military-industrial-Zionist alliance, can boast of being the metaphorical alma mater of a number of powerful members of the Bush administration. For example, Vice President Dick Cheney and his wife Lynne Cheney, State Department arms-control official John Bolton (now US ambassador to the UN), and the former chair of the Defense Policy Board, Richard Perle, all have had long-standing ties with the institute. AGREE!
But when THEY, or the public, grow weary of these puppets, what new puppets will the PUPPETMASTERS put up on the stage. Since the puppetmasters are so powerful, the only choice we have left is to stop paying for the show. See "fighting to survive."
The AEI played a key role in promoting Ahmad Chalabi's group of Iraqi exiles as a major opposition force "that would be welcomed by the Iraqi people as an alternative to the regime of Saddam Hussein". The group, working closely with the AEI, played an important role in the justification of the invasion of Iraq. It served, for example, as a major source of (largely fabricated) intelligence for the militaristic chicken hawks whenever they found the intelligence gathered by the Central Intelligence Agency and the State Department at odds with their plans of invading Iraq. [6]
AGREED! Getting one religious group to fight another religious group, on their own homeland, could not be a better example of the sick, psychopathic logic employed by the PUPPETMASTERS. First, they get psychopaths to become heads of each group, financing them along the way, discreetly of course, making sure each group gets an adequate supply of money and weapons to sustain a fight. Then, knowing the antagonism between the two groups, sets off the fireworks by bombing one of the mosques. The HATFIELDS and the McCOYS in Iraq, and they probably don't even know what we mean by that.
Another example of the interlocking network of neo-conservative forces in the Bush administration and the militaristic think-tanks that are dedicated to the advancement of the military-industrial-Zionist agenda is reflected in the affiliation of a number of influential members of the administration with the Jewish Institute for the National Security Affairs (JINSA). AGREE!
This makes sure that they have the necessary religious cover.
These include, for example, Douglas Feith, assistant secretary of defense during the first term of the Bush administration; General Jay Garner, the initial head of the US occupation authority in Iraq; and Michael Ladeen, who unofficially advises the Bush administration on Middle Eastern issues. AGREE!
You've named more players who have "sold out" their fellow countrymen, although they would vehemently deny that accusation.
JINSA "is on record in its support of the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and against the Oslo Accord ... In its fervent support for the hardline, pro-settlement, anti-Palestinian Likud-style policies in Israel, JINSA has essentially recommended that 'regime change' in Iraq should be just the beginning of a cascade of toppling dominoes in the Middle East." [7] AGREE!
Ah, the power of manipulation. And it's so easy when you get psychopaths fighting each other.
The fact that neo-conservative militarists of the Bush administration are organically rooted in the military-industrial-Zionist alliance is even more clearly reflected in their incestuous relationship with the warmongering think-tank Project for the New American Century (PNAC). Like most of its lobbying counterparts within the extensive network of neo-conservative think-tanks, PNAC was founded by a circle of powerful political figures, a number of whom later ascended to key positions in the Bush administration. AGREE!
And once again, WHO paid and WHO gained? The answer's out there. When you find it yourself, you'll understand.
The list of signatories of PNAC's founding statement of principles include Elliot Abrams, Jeb Bush, Elliot Cohen, Frank Gaffney, Zalmay Khalilzad, I Lewis Libby, Norman Podhoretz, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz. Add the signature of Cheney to the list of PNAC founders, "and you have the bulwarks of the neo-con network that is currently in the driver's seat of the Bush administration's war-without-end policies all represented in PNAC's founding document". [8] AGREE!
What a cast of puppets! This is further proof that the "elite" are not "elite." I will give you that they may be the "elite" of their own psychopathic group. Just not the "elite" of our larger group; that of decent citizens with a conscience.
A closer look at the professional records of the neo-conservative players in the Bush administration indicates that "32 major administration appointees ... are former executives with, consultants for, or significant shareholders of, top defense contractors". AGREE!
For example, Rumsfeld is an ex-director of a General Dynamics subsidiary, and his deputy during the first term of the Bush administration, Paul Wolfowitz, acted as a paid consultant to Northrop Grumman. Today the armaments lobby "is exerting more influence over policymaking than at any time since president Dwight D Eisenhower first warned of the dangers of the military-industrial complex over 40 years ago". [9] AGREE!
See, you have to prove you're a psychopath to join the ranks of these psychopaths. This is the very reason that men of conscience have almost no chance of infiltrating the group. Even if one did, who outside the group would know that he's telling the truth. A couple of our Presidents tried to break rank, but then assassination has been defined as an extreme form of censorship.
This sample evidence indicates that the view that the neo-conservative militarists' tendency to war and aggression is inspired by an ideological passion to spread American ideals of democracy is clearly false. Their successful militarization of US foreign policy stems largely from the fact that they in essence operate on behalf of two immensely powerful special interests, the military-industrial complex and the influential Israeli lobby. Neo-conservative architects of war and militarism derive their political clout and policy effectiveness primarily from the political machine and institutional infrastructure of the military-industrial-Zionist alliance. AGREE!
It is necessary to note at this point that despite its immense political influence, the Zionist lobby is ultimately a junior, not equal, partner in this unspoken, de facto alliance. Without discounting the extremely important role of the Zionist lobby in the configuration of US foreign policy in the Middle East, I would caution against simplifications and exaggerations of its power and influence over the US policy in the region. AGREE!
The Zionists are the "used," not the "user." It's only an illusion, to gain their cooperation. Why they let this continue is beyond me. It only costs them time, money and the lives of those around them. Religion is a very powerful opiate. But then again, ignorance is bliss, until it kills you.
It is true that most of the neo-conservative militarists who have been behind the recent US military aggressions in the Middle East have long been active supporters of Israel's right-wing politicians and/or leaders. It is also no secret that there is a close collaboration over issues of war and militarism among militant Zionism, neo-conservative forces in and around the Bush administration, and jingoistic think-tanks such as AEI, PNAC, CSP and JINSA. AGREE!
They must "prove" that they are doing "good." I think this is what Orwell meant by "Newspeak!"
It does not follow, however, that, as some critics argue, the US-Israeli relationship represents a case of "tail wagging the dog", that is, US foreign policy in the Middle East is shaped by the Israeli/Zionist leaders. While no doubt the powerful Zionist lobby exerts considerable influence over US foreign policy in the Middle East, the efficacy and the extent of that influence depend, ultimately, on the real economic and geopolitical interests of US foreign-policy makers. AGREE!
Especially when you consider that these are all "fronts" for the PUPPETMASTERS.
In other words, US policymakers on the Middle East would go along with the desires and demands of the radical Zionist lobby only if such demands also tended to serve the special interests that those policymakers represented or served, that is, if there were a convergence of interests over those demands. [10] AGREE!
Aggressive existential tendencies of the US military-industrial empire to war and militarism are shaped by its own internal or intrinsic dynamics: continued need for arms production as a lucrative business whose fortunes depend on permanent war and international convulsion. AGREE!
But do you not think it would make more sense that these people are merely hirelings for a greater goal. A goal so monstrous that only true psychopaths could dream it up. I suspect it all started when some more adventurous folks found they could make 16,000% on their investments in the 1600s. Those psychopaths with real knowledge of this have been trying to reproduce those gains ever since. The non-psychopaths of these families drift out and away, quietly living out their lives. For two reasons, first, the other family members would kill them if they talked, and second, who would believe them anyway? Why should they have to be the martyrs? It was not their fault they were born into these dysfunctional families. Sad, isn't it!
Conjunctural or reinforcing factors such as the horrors of the attacks on the US of September 11, 2001, or the Zionist lobby, or the party in power, or the resident of the White House will, no doubt, exert significant influences. But such supporting influences remain in essence contributory, not defining or determining. The decisive or central role is played, ultimately, by the military-industrial complex itself - that is, by the merchants of arms or wars. AGREED!
Ismael Hossein-zadeh, you've written an excellent essay, and thanks to the Asia Times for publishing it. I have not intended my comments to take anything away from your work, but merely to add my thoughts to it, based on the book, the Great Red Dragon. Hope you have a chance to peruse some of it here. Sincerely,
Ed Cate
Notes [from original article found here.]
1. See, for example, Seymour M Hersh, The military's problem with the president's Iran policy, The New Yorker (July 10, 2006); Evan Eland, Military action against Iran? Antiwar.com (January 24, 2006).
2. Hersh, "The military's problem with the president's Iran policy".
3. Ibid; see also Ismael Hossein-zadeh, US Iran policy irks senior commanders: The military vs militaristic civilian leadership, OpEdNews.com (July 24, 2006).
4. A detailed discussion of this issue, and of the de facto alliance between militant Zionism and the powerful beneficiaries of war dividends, can be found, among other places, in Chapter 6 of my recently released book, The Political Economy of US Militarism (Palgrave-Macmillan 2006).
5. William D Hartung, How Much Are You Making on the War, Daddy? (New York: Nation Books, 2003), page 101; William Hartung and Michelle Ciarrocca, The military-industrial-think tank complex, Multinational Monitor 24, No 1 and 2 (January/February 2003).
6. Hartung, How Much Are You Making on the War, Daddy? pp 103-106.
7. Ibid pp 109-11.
8. Ibid p 113.
9. William Hartung and Michelle Ciarrocca, "The military-industrial-think tank complex".
10. I have provided a longer discussion of the role of the Zionist lobby in the configuration of the US policy in the Middle East in Chapter 6 of The Political Economy of US Militarism.
Ismael Hossein-zadeh is an economics professor at Drake University, Des Moines, Iowa.
This article draws upon his newly released book, The Political Economy of U.S. Militarism (Palgrave-Macmillan Publishers).
© 2006 by Edward Ulysses Cate
Commentary Index:
Home: