Zionism’s Violent Legacy

Posted on 

[ Ed. note – The article below was originally published in January of 1996. It discusses, among other things, the assassination of Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, which had occurred only a few months earlier. The author, Donald Neff, was a journalist who worked many, many years in the mainstream media, including a term as Time Magazine’s Jerusalem bureau chief.

But Neff was not your typical mainstream media presstitute. Over the years he began to experience a major shift in his views on the Palestine-Israel conflict, and in 1979 he left Time Magazine, his articles thereafter being published mainly by the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs. According to Wikipedia, Neff “wrote a retrospective piece in 1995 detailing the change in his pro-Zionist perspective during his years as correspondent in the Middle East.”

In the article below, Neff discusses what he refers to as “revisionist Zionism,” a particularly virulent strain of Zionism founded in the 1920s by Zeev Jabotinsky, who had a slogan he often used: “We shall create, with sweat and blood, a race of men, strong, brave and cruel.” It was a philosophy that ran somewhat counter to the “mainline Zionists,” who were concerned more with the pragmatic aspects of founding a state while maybe doing a little kibbutz farming on the side.

It was in the 1940s that the revisionist Zionists came into full prominence with the emergence of Jewish terror groups, one of which was the Irgun, led by Menachem Begin, a Jabotinsky follower who would later go on to become prime minister of Israel. Among the Irgun’s exploits were the bombing of the King David Hotel in 1946 and the Deir Yassin massacre in 1948–while Begin, as prime minister, would go on to preside over the Sabra and Shatila massacre in 1982.

Neff discusses all this history in the context of the Rabin assassination–for while Jabotinsky died in 1940, and Begin left this life in 1992, revisionist Zionism has of course remained. Neff says the assassination, which took place on November 4, 1995 was carried out by the “spiritual heirs” of the Irgun…and of course the same ideology is pervasive in Israel today. In fact, Benzion Netanyahu, the father of the current prime minister, was another revisionist Zionist–one who actually served for a while as Jabotinsky’s personal secretary. ]

***

Rabin’s Murder Rooted in Zionism’s Violent Legacy

By Donald Neff

It was 48 years ago, on Jan. 4, 1948, when Jewish terrorists drove a truck loaded with explosives into the center of the all-Arab city of Jaffa and detonated it, killing 26 and wounding around 100 Palestinian men, women and children.1 The attack was the work of the Irgun Zvai Leumi—the “National Military Organization,” also known by the Hebrew letters Etzel—the largest Jewish terrorist group in Palestine. The Irgun was headed by Revisionist Zionist Menachem Begin and had been killing and maiming Arabs, Britons and even Jews for the previous 10 years in its efforts to establish a Jewish state.

This terror campaign meant that at the core of Revisionist Zionism there existed a philosophical embrace of violence. It was this legacy of violence that contributed to the assassination of Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin on Nov. 4, 1995.

The Irgun was not the only Jewish terrorist group but it was the most active in causing indiscriminate terror in pre-Israel Palestine. Up to the time of the Jaffa attack, its most spectacular feat had been the July 22, 1946 blowing up of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem, with the killing of 91 people—41 Arabs, 28 Britons and 17 Jews.2

The other major Jewish terrorist group operating in Palestine in the 1940s was the Lohamei Herut Israel , “Fighters for the Freedom of Israel,” Lehi in the Hebrew acronym, also known as the Stern Gang after its fanatical founder Avraham Stern. Two of its more spectacular outrages included the assassination of British Colonial Secretary Lord Moyne in Cairo on Nov. 6, 1944, and the assassination of Count Folke Bernadotte of Sweden in Jerusalem on Sept. 17, 1948. 3

Both groups collaborated in the massacre at Deir Yassin, in which some 254 Palestinian men, women and children were slain on April 9, 1948. Palestinian survivors were driven like ancient slaves through the streets of Jerusalem by the celebrating terrorists.4

Yitzhak Shamir was one of the three leaders of Lehi who made the decision to assassinate Moyne and Bernadotte. Both he and Begin later became prime ministers and ruled Israel for a total of 13 years between 1977 and 1992.

They were both leaders of Revisionist Zionism, that messianic group of ultranationalists founded by Vladimir Zeev Jabotinsky in the 1920s. He prophesied that it would take an “iron wall of Jewish bayonets” to gain a homeland among the Arabs in Palestine.5 His followers took his slogan literally.

Begin and the Revisionists were heartily hated by the mainline Zionists led by David Ben-Gurion. He routinely referred to Begin as a Nazi and compared him to Hitler. In a famous letter to The New York Times in 1948, Albert Einstein called the Irgun “a terrorist, rightwing, chauvinist organization” that stood for “ultranationalism, religious mysticism and racial superiority.”6 He opposed Begin’s visit to the United States in 1949 because Begin and his movement amounted to “a Fascist party for whom terrorism (against Jews, Arabs, and British alike), and misrepresentation are means, and a ‘leader state’ is the goal,” adding:

At the core of Revisionist Zionism there existed a philosophical embrace of violence.

“The IZL [Irgun] and Stern groups inaugurated a reign of terror in the Palestine Jewish community. Teachers were beaten up for speaking against them, adults were shot for not letting their children join them. By gangster methods, beatings, window-smashing, and wide-spread robberies, the terrorists intimidated the population and exacted a heavy tribute.”

Ben-Gurion considered the Revisionists so threatening that shortly after he proclaimed establishment of Israel on May 14, 1948, he demanded that the Jewish terrorist organizations disband. In defiance, Begin sought to import a huge shipment of weapons aboard a ship namedAltalena, Jabotinsky’s nom de plume.7

The ship was a war surplus U.S. tank-landing craft and had been donated to the Irgun by Hillel Kook’s Hebrew Committee for National Liberation, an American organization made up of Jewish-American supporters of the Irgun.8 Even in those days it was Jewish Americans who were the main source of funds for Zionism. While few of them emigrated to Israel, Jewish Americans were generous in financing the Zionist enterprise. As in Israel, they were split between mainstream Zionism and Revisionism. One of the best known Revisionists was Ben Hecht, the American newsman and playwright. After one of the Irgun’s terrorist acts, he wrote:

“The Jews of America are for you. You are their champions …. Every time you blow up a British arsenal, or wreck a British jail, or send a British railroad train sky high, or rob a British bank, or let go with your guns and bombs at British betrayers and invaders of your homeland, the Jews of America make a little holiday in their hearts.”9

The Altalena was loaded with $5 million worth of arms, including 5,000 British Lee-Enfield rifles, more than 3 million rounds of ammunition, 250 Bren guns, 250 Sten guns, 150 German Spandau machine guns, 50 mortars and 5,000 shells as well as 940 Jewish volunteers. Ben-Gurion reacted with fury, ordering the ship sunk in Tel Aviv harbor. Shellfire by the new nation’s armed forces set the Altalena afire, killing 14 Jews and wounding 69. Two regular army men were killed and six wounded during the fighting.10 Begin had been aboard but escaped injury. Later that night he railed against Ben-Gurion as “a crazy dictator” and the cabinet as “a government of criminal tyrants, traitors and fratricides.”11

Ben-Gurion’s deputy commander in the Altalena affair was Yitzhak Rabin, the same man who as prime minister was assassinated by one of the spiritual heirs of Menachem Begin’s Irgun terrorist group. All his life, and especially in his last years, Rabin had opposed Jewish Americans and their radical allies in Israel who continued to embrace the philosophy of the Irgun and who fought against the peace process, thereby earning their enduring hatred.

Thus at the heart of the Jewish state there has been a long and violent struggle between mainline Zionists and Revisionists that continues today. Despite cries after Rabin’s assassination that it was unknown for Jew to kill Jew, intramural hatred and occasional violence have marked relations between Zionism’s competing groups.

The core of that conflict, one that continues to divide Israel and its American supporters as well, lies in the different philosophies of David Ben-Gurion and Vladimir Jabotinsky…

Continued here

Advertisements

Russia’s past, America’s future? Jews Admit The Bolshevik Revolution Was A Jewish Plot Against Christian Russia

Jews Admit The Bolshevik Revolution Was A Jewish Plot Against Christian Russia 

ROMANOV FAMILY RUSSIA

ED-NOTE – Something to think about: Czar comes from Caesar and the last Russian dynasty was named the ROMANov.

J.POST – Moses led the Jews out of Egypt, Stalin led them out of the Politburo,” whispered veterans of the Bolshevik Revolution, as winter 1927 approached the Moscow River’s banks.

The revolution that erupted 100 years ago this week was turning on its heroes, as Joseph Stalin was purging the late Vladimir Lenin’s protégés, confidants and aides. The expulsion those days of Leon Trotsky from the Communist Party was but the beginning of an anti-Jewish assault that would continue intermittently until Stalin’s death.

The revolution’s Jewish leaders would vanish much sooner than the communism for which they fought, but many Russians – to this day – still see the revolution as a Jewish plot.

Lenin’s deputies Lev Kamenev (originally Rozenfeld) and Grigory Zinoviev (born Hirsch Apfelbaum) and his treasurer Grigori Sokolnikov (Girsh Yankelevich Brilliant) were all Jews, as were Karl Radek (Sobelsohn), co-writer of the Soviet Constitution, Maxim Litvinov (Meir Henoch Wallach-Finkelstein), foreign minister of the USSR until his removal so Stalin could pact with Hitler.

This is, of course, besides Trotsky himself, builder of the Red Army and the only Soviet who served as both foreign and defense minister.

Most proverbially, a Jew – Yakov Sverdlov – oversaw the nighttime execution of Czar Nikolai, Empress Alexandra, and their five children.

Jewish revolutionaries were prominent beyond Russia as well.

In Germany, philosopher-economist Rosa Luxemburg led an abortive revolution in 1919 before being caught, clubbed, shot dead and dumped in a canal. In Hungary, Bela Kun – originally Kohn – led a short-lived communist coup several months after Luxemburg’s murder.

In Romania, Ana Pauker – originally Hebrew teacher Hannah Rabinsohn, and later the world’s first woman foreign minister – effectively ran the country for Stalin, before falling from grace and spending her last years under house arrest. In Czechoslovakia, Rudolf Slansky was the second-most powerful figure before his public trial and execution alongside 11 other senior Jewish communists. In Poland, two of the three Stalinists who led its transition to communism – Hilary Minc, who collectivized its economy, and Jakub Berman, who headed its secret police – were Jews.

The revolution, in short, was so crowded with Jews that one had to wonder whether “the Jews” were inherently revolutionary.

A century on, it is clear they were not.

TODAY’S JEWS are a conservative lot.

Jews are now overwhelmingly academics, bankers, businesspeople, lawyers, doctors, journalists, literati and politicians, who do not encourage their children to join the proletariat. Yes, many Jews give the poor much charity and also back assorted social-democratic political formations, but on the whole the Jews are now in the business of preserving the social-political order, rather than turning it on its head.

In Israel, an unabashedly bourgeois society that once was devoutly socialist is worshiping private enterprise, individualism and hedonism, as the prime minister the people keep reelecting smokes cigars and prides himself in having slashed social spending, sold public companies, and set the market forces loose. Jews have not been seen challenging the moneyed elite since revolution’s return in 1968 as a caricature, when Mark Rudd (Rudnitsky) and David Shapiro starred in the student takeover of Columbia University’s Low Library while Daniel “the Red” Cohn-Bendit led student unrest in France.

Why, then, were the Jews of 1917 so unsettled, and why are today’s so sedate?  Very simple.

Until 1917 Russian Jewry was abused. All the lands to their west had abolished all anti-Jewish laws, policies and directives, but the czars continued to cage the Jews in the Pale of Settlement, limit their access to higher education, block their freedom of travel, association and speech, and occasionally also encourage pogroms. The Jews were provoked, and the revolution was their counterattack.

Revolutionary Jews wanted to belong, and some of them wanted to make everyone belong – everywhere and immediately. It was a utopian urge that makes one suspect Trotsky et al. remained infected by the messianic bug of the Judaism they had vowed to shed.

Whatever its cause, that urge is gone.

THERE WAS, of course, an alternative idea, one that promised to make the Jews belong in a different way, an idea that in 1920 was juxtaposed with Bolshevism by none other than a typically insightful and visionary Winston Churchill: the Zionist idea.

“The struggle which is now beginning between the Zionist and Bolshevik Jews is little less than a struggle for the soul of the Jewish people,” he wrote in the Illustrated Sunday Herald, after noting “the part played in the creation of Bolshevism and in the actual bringing about of the Russian Revolution by these international and for the most part atheistical Jews,” a role that “probably outweighs all others.”

“If, as may well happen, there should be created in our own lifetime by the banks of the Jordan a Jewish State… which might comprise three or four millions of Jews,” he now assessed, “an event would have occurred in the history of the world which would, from every point of view, be beneficial.”

It was certainly beneficial for Russia’s Jews, whose descendants eventually flocked in droves to the Jewish state, so much so that Jerusalem alone is today home to more Jews than all of Russia.

Russian Jewry went to the Jewish state because here they would be free to study what they wish, live where they please, rise as high as they could climb, and even become defense minister, speaker of the Knesset and chairman of the Jewish Agency. They knew they would belong.

The Jews who set out to redeem not their nation but all mankind ended up clubbed like Rosa Luxemburg, hanged like Rudolf Slansky, stabbed with an icepick like Trotsky, or shot by a firing squad like Bela Kun. Much as they refused to admit this to the bitter end – they did not belong.

israel’s Religious Fanaticism Is Infiltrating America

Source

Israel’s Religious Fanaticism Is Infiltrating America – Ha’aretz

Election rally for Israel’s ultra-Orthodox United Torah Judaism political party. The slogan reads: “We are all ultra-Orthodox followers of God and His Torah.” 17 Jan 2013 (Ahikam Seri)

Radical separatism, so prevalent in Israel, is infecting the ultra-Orthodox Jewish community in New York City, with Mayor Bill de Blasio’s shameful blessing. Many of the 57,000 students in New York’s Hasidic yeshivas will graduate from high school speaking little English and with no math skills or knowledge of history or science. The result will be that they will depend heavily on various forms of public assistance. The author of the article, Rabbi Eric H. Yoffie (former president of the Union for Reform Judaism), writes that this extremist practice is contrary to Jewish teachings…

By Eric H. Yoffie, Haaretz

Israelis have long suffered from the lies and distortions of the ultra-Orthodox politicians of the Shas and United Torah Judaism parties. But American Jews are now suffering as well, as the extremism of Israel’s religious establishment has made its way to America’s shores.

The American Jewish community is usually happy to receive exports from Israel, but not in this case.

The export here is the claim of Israel’s ultra-Orthodox, or Haredi, rabbis that all young men in the Haredi world must devote their lives to the study of Torah.

These young men, the rabbis insist, need not learn the practical skills necessary to support their families. They need not provide, through honest work, for the health and wellbeing of their wives and children. They need not serve in the army. Instead, they are to commit themselves to the full-time study of Torah, supported by the Israeli taxpayer. This, say the rabbis, is the way of tradition – the way that Jews have always done things.

Except it is not.

The rabbis’ claims are a total fabrication. According to the Talmud, the Torah scholar is to “combine Torah study with some worldly occupation,” and Torah study not so understood will eventually “fail and occasion sin” (Avot 2:3).

Maimonides codifies this view in the Mishneh Torah, and employs especially biting language: “Anyone who makes up his mind to study Torah but does not work and lives on charity profanes the name of God, disgraces the Torah, obscures the light of religion, causes harm to himself, and deprives himself of life in the world to come.”

It is true that exceptions were made for truly great Torah scholars. These were the select few who studied in the Jewish world’s most prestigious yeshivas, receiving support from a handful of wealthy families. But the idea that all observant Jews were to spend every day in study was viewed as impossible, both in practice and in principle.

And what was true for all of Jewish history was true in the Jewish state as well, at least for the first 20 years. Until the late 1970s, only 800 yeshiva students were granted army exemptions, and about 90% of Haredi men were employed.

But after Menahem Begin’s election victory in 1977, Haredi leaders, as their price for entering the government, insisted that army exemptions and financial subsidies for yeshiva study be granted to all full-time students who wanted them. And young men were pressured into studying, whether they were inclined to do so or not.

The result, according to recent figures from Israel’s finance ministry: Today in Israel, nearly 60,000 yeshiva students engage in full-time study. Only 51% of Haredim participate in the labor force, a number that has been falling, as compared with 89% for the rest of the Jewish population. Among those aged 25-34, when young men usually join the workforce, the rate is a pathetically low 41%.

Why did this happen? Because Haredi rabbis fear that any contact with secular Israeli society will destroy their young people’s faith. And cowardly secular political leaders, such as Benjamin Netanyahu, sit by in silence while the number of young people avoiding work and army service has been skyrocketing for 40 years.

The situation in the United States

And that brings us to the situation in America. Here, in theory, there should be no problem of work-shirking Haredi Jews exploiting the political system.  After all, in America the separation of religion and state is assured by the constitution, and there are no Orthodox religious parties to pressure politicians. In addition, every state in the Union mandates secular education for every child. And historically, most Orthodox Jews have participated in the workforce.

And yet, a problem has developed nonetheless.

Borough Park, a neighborhood in Brooklyn, Sept. 20, 2013.

According to the Pew Research Center survey of U.S. Jewry, more than 60% of American Orthodox Jews now identify as Haredi, and the overwhelming majority are located in the New York City area and the northeast. In a report issued last month, Young Advocates for Fair Education (YAFFED), on whose board I sit, demonstrated that the virus of radical separatism and fear of modernity, so prevalent in Israel, has also infected the Haredi community in New York City.

According to the report, many of the 57,000 students – and nearly all of the boys – in New York’s Hasidic yeshivas will graduate from high school completely unprepared to support themselves.

Since the boys’ education will mainly consist of Yiddish language religious studies, most will speak little English and have no math skills or knowledge of history or science. The result will be that they will possess few if any marketable skills and will depend heavily on various forms of public assistance. The report noted that this assistance has increased dramatically in the last decade, and 43% of Hasidic families are poor.

Mayor de Blasio panders to ultra-Orthodox voters

And why has this happened in the United States of America?

First, because extremism in the cauldron of the Israeli Haredi world foments extremism elsewhere.

And second, because America, like Israel, is not lacking in cowardly politicians of its own. As secular education in the yeshivas has deteriorated, the New York State and City education departments have looked the other way, despite laws mandating adequate education for all children in the New York City system.

America Has Become a Nation of Incompetents

Source

George Bush remains the ultimate symbol of ascendant stupidity

A once-proud nation which was the envy of the world now suffers from a kind of omni-present dementia

Having grown up during the second half of the 20th century, I don’t recognize my country today. I experienced life in a competent country, and now I experience life in an incompetent country.

Everything is incompetent. The police are incompetent. They shoot children, grandmothers, cripples, and claim that they feared for their life.

Washington’s foreign police is incompetent. Washington has alienated the world with its insane illegal attacks on other countries. Today the United States and Israel are the two most distrusted countries on earth and the two countries regarded as the greatest threat to peace.

The military/security complex is incompetent. The national security state is so incompetent that it was unable to block the most humiliating attack in history against a superpower that proved to be entirely helpless as a few people armed with box cutters and an inability to fly an airplane destroyed the World Trade Center and part of the Pentagon itself. The military industries have produced at gigantic cost the F-35 that is no match for the Russian fighters or even for the F-15s and F-16s it is supposed to replace.

The media is incompetent. I can’t think of an accurate story that has been reported in the 21st century. There must be one, but it doesn’t come to mind.

The universities are incompetent. Instead of hiring professors to teach the students, the universities hire administrators to regulate them. Instead of professors, there are presidents, vice presidents, chancellors, vice chancellors, provosts, vice provosts, assistant provosts, deans, associate deans, assistant deans. Instead of subject matter there is speech regulation and sensitivity training. Universities spend up to 75% of their budgets on administrators, many of whom have outsized incomes.

The public schools have been made incompetent by standardized national testing. The purpose of education today is to pass some test. School accreditation and teachers’ pay depend not on developing the creativity or independent thinking of those students capable of it, but on herding them through memory work for a standardized test.

One could go on endlessly.

Instead, I will relate a story of everyday incompetences that have prevented me from writing this week and for a few more days yet.

Recently, while away from my home, a heavy equipment operator working on a nearby construction site managed to drive under power lines with the fork lift raised. Instead of breaking the wire, it snapped the pole in half that conveyed electric power to my house. The power company came out, or, as I suspect, an outsourced contractor, who reestablished power to my home but did not check that the neutral wire was still attached.

Consequently for a week or so my house experienced round the clock surges of high voltage that blew out the surge protection, breaker box, and every appliance in the house. Expecting my return, the house was inspected, and the discovery was that there was no power. Back came the power company and discovered that high voltage was feeding into the house and had destroyed everything plugged in.

So. Here we have a moron operating heavy equipment who does not understand that he cannot drive under power lines with the lift raised. We have a power company or its outsourced contractor who does not understand that power cannot be reconnected without making certain that the neutral wire is still connected.

So every appliance is fried. Glass everywhere from blown out light bulbs. We are talking thousands of dollars.

This is America today. And the incompetents ruling incompetents want war with Iran, Korea, Russia, China. Considering the extraordinary level of incompetence throughout the United States, I guarantee you that we will not win these wars.

Modern USA has much in common with the 1917 Jewish Bolsheviks in Russia. It’s no longer a safe space for free speech

First they came for RT, now the US seeks to force China’s Xinhua to register as a foreign agent

The US is no longer a safe space for free speech. Free speech in the USA has been reduced to the freedom to agree with pre-approved narratives and agendas.

Since the year 2000 the US-China Economic and Security Review Commission of the US Congress has produced reports on the nature of China-US relations, including on matters related to trade and security.

This year, the Commission has named Chinese news agency and broadcaster Xinhua as an “intelligence gathering organisation” in spite of producing no evidence to suggest that Xinhua is anything other than a news media outlet.

According to the report,

“Xinhua serves some of the functions of an intelligence agency by gathering information and producing classified reports for the Chinese leadership on both domestic and international events”.

This could likely be the first step in laying down a modern-day witch trial against Xinhua in the same way that wild accusations against RT have led the US forcing RT America to register as a “foreign agent”.

The United States is turning into a country where freedom of speech is now a privilege reserved only for classes of people who agree with the line of the deep state governmental consensus. It goes even beyond racism, as many US born citizens who have no ethnic connections to the peoples of Russia, work for RT America and will have to be included on the list of “foreign agents” even though they are US citizens with diverse ethno-racial backgrounds.

Things are becoming truly frightening in the United States where the First Amendment is becoming little more than a way leverage the use of state power against the individual’s right to say and even hear that which he or she wants to say and here.

A bill in the US Congress looks to criminalise support of the Boycott Divestment Sanctions (BDS) movement, a group which campaigns for a material and cultural boycott of Israel.

US CONGRESS: Israel first–First Amendment second

 

Taking things to an even more sinister level, the Texas city of Dickinson has stated that public relief funds will only be issued to citizens who agree “not to boycott Israel”. Not only is this sadistic, but because it does not draw the distinction between an active or passive boycott, it is unclear how such a requirement would be enforced.

If someone in Dickinson whose property was damaged in a hurricane has never bought an Israeli product in his or her life because the product was itself unattractive or too expensive, will this be proscribed? If someone in Dickinson went to the BDS website out of curiosity and just happened never to have bought Israeli products, is this person now guilty?

It is beyond ridiculous that in a country which supposedly values free speech and the freedom of choice in the marketplace, both are being attacked.

The attacks on the freedom of speech, freedom of thought and the freedom to navigate the marketplace are nothing less than a concerted effort to push a certain narrative while censoring all others.

If you are RT or Xinhua–you are a “foreign agent”. If you are the British state-owned BBC, French state-owned France 24, Qatari state-owned Al Jazeera or the Saudi state-owned Al Alabiya, you are perfectly free to say and do whatever you like.

If you are the leader of the Israeli regime, you can come to Los Angeles, leaving your illegal nuclear weapons at home and threaten to make war upon Syria in order to fulfil the burning desire to make war upon Iran. This double-whammy threatens the sovereignty and safety of two countries all the while meddling in Syria’s diplomatic affairs using the threat of war.

On the other side of the coin, if you are a North Korean diplomat coming to Washington D.C. for tentative peace talks, you’ll not even be allowed to set foot into the United States.

If you campaign against the government of Venezuela, the US Treasury Department will help your cause by sanctioning key Venezuelan companies, the Venezuelan government and the President of Venezuela personally.

But if you are a tax paying US resident like former Pink Floyd member Roger Waters, powerful groups in the US that lobby on behalf of a foreign entity will try to use the courts to stop you from performing your music concerts and why?….because Roger Waters is a vocal supporter of BDS. Roger Waters simply wants to do to Israel exactly what the US government itself has gone to Venezuela.

It would be one thing if the US decided to unilaterally force all foreign run media to register as foreign agents and ban US citizens from campaigning in any foreign related political movements. This would violate the First Amendment guaranteeing the freedom of speech and assembly, but at least it would be a consistent, blanket ban.

Instead, the US has effectively given a list of acceptable and unacceptable foreign media outlets and causes. If it’s Russian, Chinese, Iranian, Palestinian, Syrian or Venezuelan, it’s unacceptable. If it’s Saudi, British, Israeli, Qatari or French, it is acceptable.

To make matters even more strange, if similar behaviour was being conducted in a country whose foreign policy was not subservient to that of Washington, such a country would be labelled a “dictatorial regime”.

Welcome to the United States in the 21st century, a place where you are free to agree with the government, but not free to actually be an individual with unique opinions.

Trump’s Saudi Scheme Unravels

Source

President Trump and his son-in-law bet that the young Saudi crown prince could execute a plan to reshape the Mideast, but the scheme quickly unraveled revealing a dangerous amateur hour, writes ex-British diplomat Alastair Crooke.

By Alastair Crooke

Aaron Miller and Richard Sokolsky, writing in Foreign Policy, suggest “that Mohammed bin Salman’s most notable success abroad may well be the wooing and capture of President Donald Trump, and his son-in-law, Jared Kushner.” Indeed, it is possible that this “success” may prove to be MbS’ only success.

President Trump shakes the hand of Saudi Deputy Crown Prince and Defense Minister Mohammad bin Salman on May 20, 2017. (Screenshot from Whitehouse.gov)

“It didn’t take much convincing”, Miller and Sokolski wrote: “Above all, the new bromance reflected a timely coincidence of strategic imperatives.”

Trump, as ever, was eager to distance himself from President Obama and all his works; the Saudis, meanwhile, were determined to exploit Trump’s visceral antipathy for Iran – in order to reverse the string of recent defeats suffered by the kingdom.

So compelling seemed the prize (that MbS seemed to promise) of killing three birds with one stone (striking at Iran; “normalizing” Israel in the Arab world, and a Palestinian accord), that the U.S. President restricted the details to family channels alone. He thus was delivering a deliberate slight to the U.S. foreign policy and defense establishments by leaving official channels in the dark, and guessing. Trump bet heavily on MbS, and on Jared Kushner as his intermediary. But MbS’ grand plan fell apart at its first hurdle: the attempt to instigate a provocation against Hezbollah in Lebanon, to which the latter would overreact and give Israel and the “Sunni Alliance” the expected pretext to act forcefully against Hezbollah and Iran.

Stage One simply sank into soap opera with the bizarre hijacking of Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri by MbS, which served only to unite the Lebanese, rather than dividing them into warring factions, as was hoped.

But the debacle in Lebanon carries a much greater import than just a mishandled soap opera. The really important fact uncovered by the recent MbS mishap is that not only did the “dog not bark in the night” – but that the Israelis have no intention “to bark” at all: which is to say, to take on the role (as veteran Israeli correspondent Ben Caspit put it), of being “the stick, with which Sunni leaders threaten their mortal enemies, the Shiites … right now, no one in Israel, least of all Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, is in any hurry to ignite the northern front. Doing so, would mean getting sucked into the gates of hell” (emphasis added).

The Syrian Defeat

Let us be clear, the so-called Sunni Alliance (principally Saudi Arabia and UAE, with Egypt already backing off) has just been roundly defeated in Syria. It has no capability whatsoever to “roll-back” Iran, Hezbollah or the Iraqi PMU (a Shiite militia) – except by using the Israeli “stick.” Israel may have the same strategic interests as the Sunni Alliance, but as Caspit notes, “the Saudis are interested in having Israel do the dirty work for them. But as it turns out, not everyone in Israel is as excited about it.”

Senior White House Adviser Jared Kushner, and his wife, Assistant to the President Ivanka Trump, U.S. Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, and White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus arrive at the Murabba Palace as guests of Saudi King Salman, May 20, 2017, in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. (Official White House Photo by Shealah Craighead)

This refusal to “bark” (in the famous Conan Doyle account of Sherlock Holmes) somehow knocks the blocks out from under Kushner’s “grand plan” because if Israel is opting out, what is there left to talk about? Israel precisely was the “stick” in Trump’s plan too. No stick: no Sunni Alliance roll-back of Iran; no further Saudi normalization with Israel; no Israeli-Palestinian initiative. MbS’ clumsiness (“reckless[ness]” a US official has called it) has pulled the rug out from under U.S. policy in the Middle East.Caspit calls a prospective clash between the Sunni Alliance and the Iranian-led front “a veritable war of Armageddon.” Those words encapsulate Israeli reservations.

Why did Trump gamble so heavily on the inexperienced Kushner and the impulsive MbS? Well, of course, if such a “grand plan” had indeed worked out, it would have been a major foreign policy coup – and one done over the heads of the professional foreign policy and defense echelon who were excluded from it. Trump then would have felt himself freer to ascend above the Establishment tentacles: to attain a certain elevated independence and freedom from his “minders.” He would have achieved his coup through family channels, rather than be officially advised.

But, if it sinks into farce, and MbS becomes regarded in the U.S. as a maverick, rather than a Machiavelli, the (slighted) “system” will exact its revenge: presidential judgments will stand devalued — and ever more in need of justification and “minding.”

MbS (and Kushner) may have hurt President Trump in a much wider way therefore: the failed bet on the untried MbS may leach into other spheres – such as, in consequence, U.S. allies’ openly questioning the soundness of Trump’s North Korea judgments. In short, the U.S. President’s credibility will bear the consequences for his falling for MbS’ spin.

Wishful Thinking

There is, to be fair, much that is fanciful (even sycophantic) in the Western treatment of Saudi Arabia (President Trump is not alone in his thrall of things Saudi): the very notion of Saudi Arabia transforming itself into some muscular, “modern” regional powerhouse that can stare down Iran, in itself, would seem a tad unrealistic, yet this is widely accepted among U.S. commentators. Yes, the kingdom has little alternative but to transform as its oil dividend approaches expiry, and that may well mean, in theory, wrenching the kingdom onto a new course.

Saudi defense minister, Crown Prince

Mohammad bin Salman Al Saud

 

But defining exactly how the kingdom can re-invent itself, without tearing itself apart, is likely to be much more complex than advocating some superficial embrace of “Western modernity,” or that of combatting “corruption.” These are red herrings: the family is the state; and the state (and its oil wealth) is the family’s. There is no boundary, or demarcated frontier, between state and family. The latter enjoy the privileges and perquisites of birth (depending on proximity, or distance, from the throne). And perquisites awarded or appropriated, reflect only the monarch’s power-needs that serve to sustain his absolutism. There is no “damned merit” or equity in this system, nor was it ever intended.

What then can the term “corruption” mean in such a system? Saudi Arabia does not even pretend to a level, rules-based playing field. The law (and the rules) simply are what the king says, or signs, day-to-day.

What “corruption” used to mean, when Europe earlier “enjoyed” such a similar absolutist system, was clear enough: you had got in the king’s way, that is all that “corruption” implied. So, if the outside world thinks that MbS is moving Saudi Arabia towards a Western modernity, then they must mean either that MbS is planning the jettisoning of “the family” (the 15,000 princes of the blood royal), or he’s moving towards some constitutional monarchial set-up, and a rules-based society of citizens, rather than subjects.

Nothing in MbS’ actions suggest that he is moving in that direction. Rather, his actions suggest that he wants to recover and restore the absolutist aspect to the monarchy. And the modernity that he is seeking is of the type that you buy, virtually ready-made, ready to be assembled from its box. In short, the plan is to buy an industrial base, “in a box,” off the shelf, to make up for depleting oil revenues.

Vision 2030 tells us that this well-packaged, high-tech, “industrial base” is supposed to yield $1 trillion’s profit per annum, if all goes well … eventually. That is to say, it is intended as replacement source of income: precisely to support “the family” – and not displace it. It is not therefore “reformist” in the Western notion of modernity being “equality before the law” and of protected rights.

Unrealistic Hopes  

Well, this type of non-organic, high-speed industrialization is not so easy to graft into society (if you are not Josef Stalin). It is expensive and, as history also tells us, is socially and culturally disruptive. It will cost a lot more than the reported $800 billion which MbS hopes to “recover” from his detainees (through physical coercion – some 17 have been already been hospitalized, in consequence of their treatment in detention).

President Donald Trump and First Lady Melania Trump join Saudi King Salman and Egyptian President Abdel Fattah Al Sisi, May 21, 2017, to participate in the inaugural opening of the Global Center for Combating Extremist Ideology. (Official White House Photo by Shealah Craighead)

The difficulty is that some in the family would have opposed such adventurism against Iran. MbS seems to be pursuing a notion similar to that adopted by the neocons: i.e. the Kristolian argument that you can’t make (or restore) a “benevolent hegemony” omelet without breaking a few eggs. And as Miller and Sokolsky noted, Trump “didn’t take much convincing” — MbS’ vision intersected precisely with his own imperatives (and animus towards Iran). Trump duly tweeted his endorsement for the Saudi “corruption” crack-down.But, if it is not to Westernize the economy, why then are so many senior family members needing to be “got out of the way”? This part of the “grand plan” relates perhaps, to the reason why MbS wanted, so much, to “woo and capture” President Trump (as Miller and Solkosky put it). MbS is frank about this: he has been telling President Trump that he wants to restore the kingdom’s former grandeur; to be again the leader of the Sunni world, and the guardian of Islam. And to do that, upstart Iran and the Shi’i revival must be knocked back down into subordination to Saudi leadership.

And here lay the third leg to the “grand plan”: Israel would be “the stick” for the Saudi-UAE-U.S. alliance against Iran (Hezbollah was to be to be its peg for action). Saudi Arabia then, in return, would move to recognize the Jewish State, and Israel would give the Palestinians “something”: a “something” that might be called a state, even if it was much less than a state. The U.S. and Saudi Arabia would co-ordinate in pressuring the Palestinians to accept the U.S. proposals for a “settlement.”

Why did it go so wrong? Exaggerated expectations of that which each other party could realistically implement. Believing each other’s rhetoric. America’s love affair with Saudi royalty. Kushner’s family ties to Netanyahu. Wishful thinking on the part of Kushner and Trump that MbS could be the instrument to restore not just the Saudi kingdom as America’s “policeman” in the Islamic world, but even the American-led order in the Middle East, too.

Maybe Jared Kushner believed Bibi Netanyahu when he hinted that “normalization” of relations between Saudi Arabia and Israel would witness reciprocation in Israeli concessions to the Palestinians (when in fact, the Israeli security cabinet has already vetoed the concessions – well short of a state – that were being discussed in this connection)?

Maybe Jared believed MbS when he suggested that he could mobilize the Sunni world against Iran – if America and Israel backed him (when even Egypt opposed destabilizing Lebanon)?

Maybe MbS believed that Trump spoke for America when he offered to support him (when in fact, he spoke only for the White House)?

Maybe MbS thought that Trump would rally Europe against Hezbollah in Lebanon (in fact, the Europeans have prioritized Lebanese stability)?

And, maybe MbS and Kushner thought Netanyahu spoke for Israel when he promised to be a partner in the front against Hezbollah and Iran? Was it the “grand plan” that was affirmed between Netanyahu and Trump on the day before the latter launched his United Nations broadside at Iran in September? When in fact, while any Israeli Prime Minister can wage war against the Palestinians with a relatively free hand, the same is not true where the state of Israel itself is being put at stake. No Israeli P.M. can commit to a possibly existential conflict (for Israel), without having broad support from the Israeli political and security establishment. And the Israel Establishment will only contemplate war when it is plainly in the Israeli interest, and not merely to please MbS or Mr Trump.

Ben Caspit (and other Israeli commentators) confirm that the Israeli establishment does not see war with Hezbollah, and the risk of a wider conflict, to be in the Israeli interest.

The fallout from this episode is highly significant. It has exposed that Israel presently is deterred from contemplating a war in the region (as Caspit explains). It too has underlined the hollowness of MbS ambitions to mount a “Sunni Alliance” against Iran; and it has undercut President Trump’s containment policy for Iran. For now, at least, we may expect Iran and Russia to consolidate the state in Syria, and to stabilize the northern tier. Caspit’s “war of Armageddon” may yet arrive – but not for now, perhaps.

Alastair Crooke is a former British diplomat who was a senior figure in British intelligence and in European Union diplomacy. He is the founder and director of the Conflicts Forum.

THE SAKER: A ZIOWAHABI ATTACK ON HEZBOLLAH AND IRAN?

South Front

17.11.2017

The Saker: A ZioWahabi Attack On Hezbollah And Iran?

Written by The Saker; Originally appeared at The Unz Review

Israel, Saudi Arabia Setting Preconditions For War With Hezbollah – a critical analysis

SouthFront has just released a very interesting video analysis warning about the possibility of a war involving Lebanon, Saudi Arabia and, possibility, Syria, Iran, and Israel. That, of course, also means that Russia and the US would be involved. First, please see the video here:

What I propose to do is go over the implications of such a scenario.

The context: a total AngloZionist failure on all fronts

To understand the context for these developments we first need to quickly summarize what has taken place in Syria and the rest of the Middle-East in the past few years.

The initial AngloZionist plan was to overthrow Assad and replace him with the Takfiri crazies (Daesh, al-Qaeda, al-Nusra, ISIS – call them whatever you want). Doing this would achieve the following goals:

  1. Bring down a strong secular Arab state along with its political structure, armed forces and security services.
  2. Create total chaos and horror in Syria justifying the creation of a “security zone” by Israel not only in the Golan, but further north.
  3. Trigger a civil war in Lebanon by unleashing the Takfiri crazies against Hezbollah.
  4. Let the Takfiris and Hezbollah bleed each other to death, then create a “security zone”, but this time in Lebanon.
  5. Prevent the creation of a Shia axis Iran-Iraq-Syria-Lebanon.
  6. Breakup Syria along ethnic and religious lines.
  7. Create a Kurdistan which could then be used against Turkey, Syria, Iraq and Iran.
  8. Make it possible for Israel to become the uncontested power broker in the Middle-East and forces the KSA, Qatar, Oman, Kuwait and all others to have to go to Israel for any gas or oil pipeline project.
  9. Gradually isolate, threaten, subvert and eventually attack Iran with a wide regional coalition of forces.
  10. Eliminate all center of Shia power in the Middle-East.

That was an ambitious plan, but the Israelis felt pretty confident that their US vassal-state would provide the resources needed to achieve it. And now this entire plan has collapsed due to the very high effectiveness of an informal but yet formidable alliance between Russia, Iran, Syria and Hezbollah.

To say that the Israelis are seething with rage and in a state of total panic would be an understatement. You think I am exaggerating? Then look at it from the Israeli point of view:

  1. The Syrian state has survived and its armed and security forces are now far more capable than they were before the war started (remember how they *almost* lost the war initially? The Syrians had to bounce back, learn some very hard lessons, but by all reports they have made tremendous improvements and while at a critical moment Iran and Hezbollah were literally “plugging holes” in the Syrian frontlines and “extinguishing fires” on local flashpoints, now the Syrians are doing a very good job of liberating large chunks of their country, including every single city in Syria).
  2. Not only is Syria stronger, but the Iranians and Hezbollah are all over the country now which is driving the Israelis into a state of panic and rage.
  3. Lebanon is rock solid, even the latest Saudi attempt to kidnap Hariri is backfiring.
  4. Syria will remain unitary and Kurdistan is not happening. Millions of displaced refugees are returning home.
  5. Israel and the US look like total idiots and, even worse, as losers with no credibility left.

This is all a disaster for the AngloZionists who now are falling back to their typical attitude when met with resistance: if we can’t control it, then let’s destroy it.

The plan: force the US to attack Iran

The following is only my speculation and nothing more. I have no way of knowing what the Axis of Kindness (US-Israel-KSA) has come up with, but I feel that I can take an educated guess. For one thing, this is nothing new. The Saudis and the other Gulf states have in the past made noises about intervening in Syria and we know that the Saudis have intervened in Bahrain and Yemen. As for the Israelis, their record of (completely illegal) military interventions is so long that we can safely assume that the Israelis will be involved in *any* ugly or evil plan to lay the region to waste. The main problem for the Saudis and the Israelis is that they have bad armies. Expensive ones – yes. High-tech ones – yes. But their problem is that their only true area of expertise is massacring defenseless civilians, that they are real experts at. But in terms of real warfare, especially against truly formidable adversaries like the Iranians or Hezbollah, the “ZioWahabis” (what a combo!) don’t stand a chance and they know it (even if they never admit it). Imagine how frustrating that must be: you basically control the US which you have turned into a vassal-state, you spent billions and billions of dollars in equipping and training your bloated armed forces, but at the end of the day the Shias are just laughing in your face. And, for some reason you cannot fathom, every time you try to “teach them a lesson”, it is you who has to crawl back home in total shame to lick our wounds and try to hush up the magnitude of your defeat. That hurts, badly. So a plan to make the Shias pay for it had to be concocted. Here is what I think it will be.

First, the goal will not be to defeat Hezbollah or Iran anywhere. For all their racist rhetoric and hubris, the Israelis know that neither they nor, even less so, the Saudis have what it would take to seriously threaten Iran, or even Hezbollah. But their plan is, I think, much cruder: to trigger a serious conflict and then force the US to intervene.

I have written many articles explaining that the US military does not have the means to win a war against Iran. And that might be the problem here: the US commanders know full well that and they are therefore doing whatever it takes to tell the Neocons “can’t do, so sorry!” (that is the only reason why a US attack on Iran has not happened yet). From an Israeli point of view, this is totally unacceptable and the solution is simple: simple force the US into a war they really don’t want. After all, who cares how many US goyim will die? As for the Iranians, the goal of a Israeli-triggered US attack on Iran would not be to defeat Iran, but only to hurt it, very very badly. That is the real goal. As far as the Israelis are concerned, not only don’t they give a damn about how many non-Jews will die (Judaic ethics teach that all non-Jews are most likely deserving to die anyway) as long as their Master Race benefits from it. Simply put: to them we are only tools, tools capable of thought, but tools nonetheless. That is also how Neocons view us, of course. In fact, I can just about imagine the glee of the Israelis seeing that the Shia and Sunni Muslims are killing each other. Throwing in a few Christians only makes it even better.

So it’s all simple: have the Saudis attack Lebanon and/or Iran, observe how they lose, then switch on the propaganda machine at full power and explain to the average TV-watching goy that Iran is a threat to the region and the aggressor here, that the Saudis are only defending themselves from Iranian aggression. And if that is not enough, they scream “oy gevalt!” in the US Congress and have the prostitutes on the Hill explain to the American people that the US must “lead the Free World” to “defend” the “only democracy in the Middle-East” against Iranian “aggression” and that the US have a “responsibility” to prevent the Iranians of “seizing the Saudi oil fields” etc. etc. etc.

It’s a win-win situation for the Israelis as long as there are not caught red-handed manipulating it all. But we can count on our beloved Ziomedia to make sure that no such “anti-Semitic” accusations are ever made, even if Israeli fingerprints are all over the place.

Moon of Alabama has just posted an interesting article entitled “Revealed – Saudis Plan To Give Up Palestine – For War On Iran” which seems plausible to me and which further corroborates my thesis that the goal is to get the US to attack Iran. Of course, the very notion that the Saudis could give up Palestine implies two outright outlandish notions: first, that the KSA has not already sold out the Palestinians many times over and, second, that the Saudis could somehow “deliver” Palestine to the Zionist Entity. Still, I recommend the reading of this article which contains a lot of very interesting revelations about the true nature and intentions of the Saudis regime.

As for the Israelis, they are offering to share intelligence (read: targeting data) with the Saudis. How touching it is to see these two medieval, backward and generally evil regimes are so willing to work together. At least they are both now showing their true, ugly, faces!

The counter-plan

The Iranians really have no good options here. The least bad option is to do what Putin is doing in the Donbass: remain externally passive at the risk of having the not too gifted accuse you of caving in. Regardless, if your enemy’s plan is not to win, but to lose, then refusing to engage him makes perfectly good sense, at least on the strategic level and temporarily.

I am not suggesting that the Iranians not fight back on a tactical level. Even the Russian Task Force in Syria has official orders to defend itself if attacked. I am talking at a strategic level. Basically, tempting as it might be, the Iranians have to refrain from striking back at Saudi Arabia or itself. Ditto for Israel. In a paradoxical way, Iran cannot do what Hezbollah did in 2006 and the reason for that is very simple: by the time the first Hezbollah missiles began raining down on Israel the Israelis had already reached their highest level of escalation (their usual vicious campaign to make civilians pay). But in the case of Iran, the AngloZionist Empire could step up the level of violence way beyond what the Israelis and the Saudis could ever do by themselves. The combined power of Israel and the Saudis is dwarfed by the kind of firepower the US (CENTCOM+NATO) could unleash against Iran and it is therefore crucial that the Iranians not give the US Americans any pretext to officially join the attack. Instead of destroying the regime in Riyadh the Iranians should let, or even help, the regime in Riyadh destroy itself. I think that the Saudis have even less staying power than the US or the Israelis, so there is no need to force a rapid outcome of any war between Iran and the KSA.

Needless to say, if the AngloZionist Empire joins in and unleashes its full military might against Iran, something which I consider a very real possibility, then all bets are off and Iran should, and will, retaliate with a full set of symmetrical and asymmetrical responses, including strikes against Israel and the Saudis, and even strikes against CENTCOM bases in the entire region. However, such a situation would have catastrophic consequences for Iran and should therefore be avoided if at all possible.

At the end of the day the best hope the world has is that a US American patriot will see through this rather obvious plot to “wag the dog” and tell the ZioWahabis “not on my watch” like Admiral Fallon did in 2007 (will that honorable man ever get the historical recognition he deserves, say a Nobel Peace Prize? Possibly never in this world, but in the judgment of God he shall be called a “son of God” (Matt 5:9)). By themselves the Israelis and the Saudi are just a gang of medieval thugs which even Hezbollah can terrify and force to run. Their only real power is the power they have in Congress and the US Ziomedia: the power of corruption, the ability to lie, deceive and betray. I know for a fact that there are many US officers on all levels in the US armed forces which see straight through these Zionist smokescreen and whose loyalty is to the United State and not to the nasty little Zionist Entity in Palestine. I have studied and worked with such patriots and there are plenty of them in the Saker Community today. I am not suggesting that we should count on top US commanders refusing to execute a Presidential order (like this article is suggesting). The truth is that anybody who has served in the military, especially at a high command level (Pentagon, CENTCOM), knows that there are all sorts of creative ways to make sure that something does not happen. Finally, I have not lost all hope that Trump could do the right thing. Yes, he is a weak man, yes, he is now cornered and has no allies left, but when faced with the horrendous consequences of a attack on Iran he still might say “no” and order his staff to come up with some other plan. Trump might also realize that refusing to wage war on Iran would be his best revenge against those who have smeared him and who are now apparently trying to impeach him.

Conclusion: will the attack happen?

In short, probably yes. The simple truth is that the nutcase regimes in power in Israel and Saudi Arabia are cornered and desperate. The rise in power of Iran over the past decade has been immense and irresistible. The recent failure of the ZioWahabis to bring even tiny Qatar to heel is indicative of the tremendous erosion in power and credibility these wacko regimes have suffered. I believe that the recent trips by Bibi Netanyahu and even the Saudi King to Moscow are all part of an effort on the part of the ZioWhabis to gauge the Russian response to an attack on Iran.

[Sidebar: While we will never know what was said behind closed doors, my guess is that Putin indicated in clear terms to the ZioWahabis that Russia will not step aside and let them strike at Iran. In truth, Russia has very limited options. Unless Russian personnel are directly attacked, Russia cannot just go to war in a overt and formal way, that would be way too dangerous, especially against the US. But Russia could immensely (and very rapidly) strengthen Iranian air defense capabilities by deploying her aircraft (A-50, MiG-31s, in Iran or even by flying them in from Russia to conduct surveillance flights. Russia can provide the Iranians with intelligence far beyond anything the Iranians could collect themselves. Likewise, the Russians could quietly deploy some of their electronic warfare systems to key locations in Iran. The US Americans would rapidly detect all this, but Russia would still have a “plausible deniability” on a political level. Finally, the Russians could do for Iran what they have done for Syria and integrate all the Iranian and Russian air defense capabilities into a single network thereby immensely improving the capabilities of the currently rather modest, but rapidly improving, Iranian air defense capabilities.]

At this moment in time it is pretty clear that an attack on Iran is being prepared and such an attack is possible or even likely. But it is not a done deal yet. For one thing the Saudis and Israelis have a long history of empty threats and both regimes love posturing and grandstanding. And for all their bravado they do realize that Iran is a formidable and very sophisticated adversary. They probably also remember what happened when the Iraqis, with the full help and support from the US, the Soviet Union, France, Britain and pretty much everybody else attacked Iran when Iran was at its weakest. Following a long and horrible war, the Iranians are now stronger than ever, Saddam is dead and the Iranians are more or less in control of Iraq. Iran is simply not a good country to attack, especially with a lack of a clear vision of what “victory” constitutes. So you ought to be crazy to attack Iran. The problem is, of course, that the Saudis and the Israelis are crazy, they have proved that many times over. So our best hopes is that they might be just “crazy”, but not “that crazy”. Not much of a hope, but that’s the best we got.

%d bloggers like this: