Ahmadinejad

Pakistan the Evil Doer and the Times Square Fizzler

Were Muslim Evil Doers again at work in New York?

Is that the lesson to be learned from a May 1^st “car bomb” that fizzled while parked alongside the Marriott Hotel in Manhattan’s busy Times Square?

Why now?

The clues are there if only investigators will follow the facts. With reports of this latest Evil Doer dominating national news coverage, where should investigators look?

Start with the May 4^th New York Times. A helpful clue appears in the last sentence of the last paragraph of an article buried on page 13 titled “Iran Angrily Defends Nuclear Program.”

There you will also find the Times’ account of a U.N. speech by Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Years ago he urged: “Zionism must be erased from the pages of history.”

Or, as translated by The Times, “Israel must be wiped off the map.”

Oft described as a “Holocaust Denier,” he routinely challenges the consensus belief about its number of casualties. His persistence on that delicate points explains why the U.N. General Assembly was only one-third full during his May 3^rd speech.

The same day that Muslim Evil Doing dominated our national media, our “paper of record” published only a cursory report of U.N. efforts to contain nuclear nonproliferation—the threat with which both Iran and Ahmadinejad are most closely associated:

“A compromise worked out in 1995 called for a special conference on creating a nuclear-weapons-free Middle East, but it has never been convened. Egypt is again demanding that gathering. The United States position has been that such a treaty can be worked out only after a comprehensive Middle East peace plan.”

Could the possibility of such a treaty after a 15-year delay explain the timing of this widely reported Evil Doing? Which nation is best placed—and most motivated—to scuttle a comprehensive peace plan?

Peace Plans vs. the Agent Provocateur

Let’s take a quick look at Israeli conduct since 1948. That’s when President Harry Truman, a Christian Zionist, recognized Jewish Zionism as a legitimate basis for a state.

1956: Just eight years later, Zionists played a leading role in provoking the Suez Crisis in an attempt to expand Israel’s agreed-to borders. That crisis was timed to emerge during the reelection campaign of President Dwight D. Eisenhower.

1963: In June, President John F. Kennedy wrote to Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion to insist on inspections of Israel’s Dimona reactor. Even then, 47 years ago, a U.S. president sought to preclude a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. The next day, Ben-Gurion announced his timely resignation. Five months later, following Kennedy’s assassination, President Lyndon Johnson approved more U.S. arms for Israel.

1967: In June, Zionists mounted a Six-Day land grab designed to appear defensive. That provocation ensured the region-wide hostility that remains an ongoing catalyst for conflicts and hostilities in the Middle East. Johnson covered-up the Israeli attack on a U.S. Navy ship, the USS Liberty, that killed 34 Americans and wounded 175. The admiral father of Republican Senator John McCain played a key role in the cover-up.

The same night that this long-planned war began, Johnson was being ‘serviced’ in the White House by Mathilde Krim, a former Irgun operative then married to Arthur Krim, president of United Artists and the top fundraiser for the Democratic Party—then headed by Johnson. See McCain Family Secret: The Cover-up.

2003: Fast forward 36 years and a Republican Christian Zionist president was induced to order the U.S. military to war in Iraq in response to: (a) a high-profile provocation in Manhattan, and (b) intelligence “fixed” around an agenda consistent with Zionists’ expansionist goals for Greater Israel.

When advising Democrat Truman against extending U.S. recognition to this extremist enclave, the Pentagon’s Joint Chiefs described the Zionists’ “fanatical concepts” and cautioned him about their intent to seek “military and economic hegemony over the entire Middle East.” The consistency of Israeli behavior has since proven the correctness of that candid military assessment.

2008: Between Christmas 2008 and the January 2009 inauguration of Barack Obama, Zionists mounted a military assault on Palestinians confined in Gaza, leaving more than 1400 dead, including 400 children. That well-timed provocation rekindled region-wide outrage that undermined U.S. military efforts in the region and deepened the distrust of Americans by Muslims to whom the U.S. already appeared guilty by association.

Sum of All Fears

Does the appearance in Times Square of a Muslim Evil Doer credibly reinforce the need for the U.S. to lead a Global War on Terrorism? Or was the Fizzler a “patsy”—a pawn—deployed to freshen up a stale storyline and revive a flagging geopolitical narrative?

The botched Manhattan incident is hauntingly similar to the “Christmas Day Bomber.” That similarly botched event is widely ridiculed as “The Crotch Bomber” by those aware of the facts confirming that “terrorist” event was an Israeli operation reliant on a Muslim “patsy.”

As with the young Nigerian apprehended on Christmas Day while enroute from Amsterdam to Detroit, the Times Square Pakistani “terrorist” was, at best, inept. When he locked the car, he left his apartment key in a vehicle featuring an identification number that helped ensure his arrest within two days.

Yet to be assessed is how he was allowed to travel freely between the U.S. and western tribal regions of Pakistan where he was reportedly being “trained.”

Media reports embellished the import of multiple bags of fertilizer in his car. Those reports evoked memories of Timothy McVeigh and a fertilizer-laden truck bomb used in a 1995 incident in Oklahoma City that left 168 dead, including children attending a day care center.

Only with a close perusal of The Times report could a reader uncover the concession that the fertilizer used by this latest Evil Doer was non-explosive.

As this 30-year old Pakistani stepped away from his recently purchased car, the Rube Goldberg contraption “rigged to explode” was already smoking (i.e., fizzling), ensuring it would quickly be spotted in the most heavily trafficked area in midtown Manhattan.

Evil Doer or Pliable Asset?

Was this latest “Muslim terrorist” an “asset” as described in the sophisticated psy-ops used in unconventional warfare? Assets are people profiled in sufficient depth that they can be relied on to perform consistent with their profile when placed in a circumstance over which the perpetrators exert influence. See: How Israel Wages War in Plain Sight.

Was this operation another asset-enabled provocation designed to manipulate the thoughts and emotions of Americans? Could this latest incident be an example of how well-timed psy-ops are deployed to shape policy-making in the U.S. and the U.N.?

Is this incident a U.S. counterpart to how Gaza is “rigged to explode” based on a six-decade siege, the routine use of disproportionate force and a seething bitterness periodically rekindled by announcements of more settlements on disputed land?

Is the American mindset being “rigged to explode” against Muslim Evil Doers? Is that the psy-ops purpose of serial incidents marketed by mainstream media with a common theme of “Islamo” fascism?

In an era of Information Age warfare, national security requires an ability to distinguish predator from prey. And genuine victims from those adept at creating consensus beliefs. It was consensus beliefs in phony intelligence that induced us to war in Iraq in response to the provocation of 911.

Probabilistic Media Reporting

For game theory war planners, the outcomes of their operations are never 100% certain. By controlling key variables, however, desired results become likely and even mathematically foreseeable. In national security parlance, the results of game theory-modeled operations are “probabilistic.” See: How Israel Wages Game Theory Warfare.

What was the likelihood of Bill Clinton’s reaction to sexual overtures from White House intern Monica Lewinsky at a time-critical juncture in the lead-up to the war on terrorism? What was the probability of Lyndon Johnson’s response to the wiles of Mathilde Krim in the lead-up to the 1967 war?

As with the foreseeable reaction to well-timed personal encounters, so too the probabilistic outcome of reactions to well-timed provocations. The strategic motivation behind terrorist events may be difficult to discern. For game theory war planners, the goal is typically the anticipated reaction. And the reaction to that reaction….

Thus the essential narrative-advancing role of media reports that focus on the incident without a context for the public to appraise its potential game theory purpose.

What was the likely response of a Christian Zionist commander-in-chief when provoked by a mass murder on U.S. soil? How difficult was it to profile the personality of G.W. Bush?

Was the probable response enhanced when key decision-making variables were controlled with phony intelligence “fixed” around a pre-determined goal?

Other than like-minded fanatics with a genius for game theory math, who could orchestrate such an operation in plain sight?

What’s the probability that this latest “terrorist event” in Manhattan would have an impact on U.N. treaty negotiations in Manhattan? Or that this incident could affect Zionist goals?

What was the likelihood that those reporting the news (with an undisclosed bias) would obscure U.N. negotiations on nuclear nonproliferation while highlighting this “terrorist” event?

Did the timing of this incident have anything to do with the fact that the Iranian leader, Holocaust Denier and Muslim Evil Doer was scheduled to speak in Manhattan?

For a nation reliant on informed choice to defend its interest, what could possibly be more perilous to our ability to protect ourselves from all enemies, both foreign and domestic?

What impressions did this reporting—still ongoing—create in the minds of Americans?

Is this another example of how consensus beliefs are created to advance a narrative?

Is the intent to reinforce the threat of a nuclear Iran? Is that our national media downplayed the potential of a Middle East free of the threat of nuclear weapons?

Game Theory and the Restoration of National Security

Only after the Fizzler operation did a likely motivation for its timing come into focus. On May 5^th, four days after the incident, the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council voiced support for making the entire Middle East a nuclear-free zone.

That would mean scrapping nuclear weapons in the hands of Zionists—or what the Joint Chiefs called Jewish “fanatics” who seek to dominate the Muslim-dominant Middle East.

When your numbers are few but your ambitions vast (i.e., fanatical), what choice do you have but to induce another nation to wage your wars? How else could Zionists proceed but by befriending the nation they intended to betray?

How could they defraud us without first befriending us? What better force-multiplier for Zionists to pursue their ambitious goals than to nurture at the close of WWII a “special relationship” with a nuclear-armed superpower?

How better to succeed from the shadows than with serial operations carried out by agent provocateurs skilled in the game theory modeling of anticipated reactions?

As for Iran and its widely reported ambitions to develop nuclear weapons, media accounts routinely omit a key component in this professed peril: Iran has no capacity to project force.

Nuclear terrorism, however, is consistent with game theory provocations. Will we see such operations? Will we see a nuclear “event” in the U.S.?

Will nuclear devices be deployed by a state whose expansionist goals can only succeed by sustaining a consensus narrative: The Clash of Civilizations?

Just days before this incident, the U.S. extended sanctions against Syria, largely in reliance on Israeli intelligence charging that Damascus was shipping Scud missiles to Hezbollah.

A narrative has already been launched to connect Iran-supported Hezbollah to an “incident” in the U.S.

Two weeks after Israel invaded Lebanon to pursue Hezbollah in July 2006, Israeli operative Jerome Corsi launched at Ground Zero in Manhattan a book titled Minutemen. Its theme: due to our failed immigration policies, Hezbollah terrorists are sneaking across the Mexican border and plotting another 911.

Did Zionists Walk into A Trap?

How can those targeted by such duplicity make the perpetrators transparent in real time? Did the U.S. lull this serial agent provocateur into staging a transparent operation?

Did the Fizzler incident help make apparent a network of psy-ops support, including the role of undisclosed bias in mainstream media? We don’t know.

What we know is this: as with the Crotch Bomber, our national media assessed and reported the incident consistent with The Clash storyline. Reports routinely referred to the Christmas Day Bomber as proof of an ongoing threat from fanatical Muslims.

We also know this: the media profile given this provocation obscured progress in a long-delayed international effort meant to contain the threat of nuclear terrorism. To sustain the consensus narrative requires plausible events that sustain a fearful mindset.

Right on cue, a reliable political asset, Vice President Joe “I am a Zionist” Biden, charged in a May 6^th keynote speech to the European Parliament in Brussels that Iran (i.e., not Israel) could provoke a “nuclear arms race” in the Middle East.

Emboldened by support from those in positions of influence, Tel Aviv defended its “opaque” nuclear weapons policy that same day, citing the policy’s “strategic advantage.” Israel also reconfirmed its refusal to sign the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty until a comprehensive Arab-Israel peace plan is in place.

With peace negotiations downgraded to “proximity talks,” Israeli officials resumed their taunts by insisting on a Palestinian “incitement index” demanding that Palestinians stop anti-Israel incitement and promote education toward peace.

Such Israeli conduct only further underscores their confidence that no one will hold them accountable, especially the U.S.

Psy-ops in the Information Age

This “Pakistani terrorism” appears tailor-made (and timed) to gain traction for the consensus belief in an “Islamo” fascist narrative. That belief may yet attain critical mass.

Yet transparency is on the rise along with a steadily widening grasp of how agent provocateur operations and game theory warfare manipulate the public mindset.

Successful psy-ops are measured not by an incident but by how thinking shifts in response.

As during the Kennedy era, the Middle East presents the greatest threat of nuclear proliferation. Since the Truman era, Zionist goals have dominated politics in the Middle East and remain at the center of the nuclear nonproliferation challenge.

Should Barack Obama seek to secure Israel’s nuclear arsenal, what will be his fate?

Should Zionist fanatics conclude that their agenda for regional dominance is at risk, will they stage a nuclear Masada?

Could such an event be orchestrated to make it appear the work of Muslim Evil Doers?

If that possibility has not been factored into our national security equation, those charged with protecting the U.S. badly misread the mindset of the fanatic.

With transparency emerging at a steadily increasing pace, accountability now looms on the geopolitical horizon. What are those complicit to do? What are their alternatives?

The opposition to peace traces its roots not to Pakistan or Iran. Nor will its source be found in Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt or other Muslim nations in a region that Zionists mean to dominate.

The opponents of peace are those Albert Einstein and 27 prominent Jews described in a December 1948 letter to The New York Times as “this latest manifestation of fascism.”

The Last Birthday?

May 14^th marks the 62^nd anniversary of Harry Truman’s fateful two-sentence statement extending to this extremist enclave U.S. recognition as a legitimate state.

The goals of Zionist fanatics remain unchanged. The only change is this: an informed public is beginning to grasp the murderous measures to which Israel and its supporters will resort to attain those goals.

We now have a lengthy history to prove it. Transparency will be the death knell of Zionism. The only question is this: at what additional cost in human suffering?

The Mossad, Israel’s intelligence and foreign operations directorate, specializes in waging war “by way of deception.” Zionist game theory modeling succeeds in plain sight through serial provocations that set in motion cascades of foreseeable reactions.

A former Mossad case officer revealed the simple secret of Israel’s success at catalyzing and sustaining serial conflicts: “Once the orchestra starts to play, we just hum along.”

Thus the tactical role of duplicity in fostering environments of fear, distrust and hatred. Thus the strategic need to sustain The Clash of Civilizations as a plausible narrative.

As those most clearly responsible for enabling this treachery, we Americans must concede our central role. That role obliges us to ensure a rapid closure to this anguished chapter in human history.

Americans must lead an initiative to withdraw recognition, impose a democratic one-state solution and transform Jerusalem into an international city protected under U.N. auspices.

Most critically, Israel’s nuclear arsenal must be secured consistent with decades of experience confirming that Zionists pose the world’s greatest threat to nuclear proliferation.

Ahmadinejad

Will Israel Ensure that History Repeats Itself?

The lead-up to the first U.S.-Iran talks in three decades saw a replay of the same modus operandi that induced the U.S. and its allies to invade Iraq in March 2003. Then as now, the invasion of Iran is consistent with a regime change agenda for Greater Israel described in a 1996 strategy document prepared by Jewish-Americans for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

As with Iraq, the threat of weapons of mass destruction is again marketed as a causa belli. As with Iraq, the claim is disputed by weapons inspectors and intelligence analysts. The Iraqi program had been shut down a dozen years before the invasion. In Iran, there is no evidence that uranium is being enriched beyond the low levels required for energy and medical purposes.

Reports of a “secret” processing plant failed to note that Iran suspended uranium enrichment from 2003 until 2005. Seeing no change in the political climate except more sanctions and more Israeli threats to bomb its nuclear sites, Iran began building and equipping a new facility.

As with Iraq, there is no direct threat to the U.S. As with Iraq, mainstream U.S. media focused not on Israel—the only nation in the region known to have nuclear weapons—but on Iran. Enrichment is relatively easy compared to the steps required to design, build and reliably deliver a nuclear warhead. Activity around each of those steps can be readily detected.

U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates acknowledged that even if Iran were attacked, that does nothing to alter Iran’s nuclear prospects—except provoke them to develop the very weapons that the evidence suggests are not now being produced. Is this a calculated move to exert pressure on Tehran? Or to provoke them? Or is this a move by Washington to buy time from an “ally” that threatens an attack—with disastrous effects on U.S. interests and those of its genuine allies?

To catalyze a climate of insecurity among Jews, pro-Israelis periodically claim that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad proposes to “wipe Israel off the map.” A correct translation confirms that what he urged is that “this occupation regime over Jerusalem must vanish from the pages of time.” Akin to the widely sought demise of the oppressive Soviet regime, that proposal enjoys the support of many moderate, secular and non-Zionist Jews who have long recognized the threat that Jewish extremists pose to the broader Jewish community.

No one can explain why Iran, even if nuclear armed, would attack Israel with its vast nuclear arsenal estimated at 200-400 warheads, including several nuclear-armed submarines. In mid-July, Israeli warships deployed to the Red Sea to rehearse attacks on Iran. As in the lead-up to war with Iraq, former Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz is again beating the war drums. This is the same adviser who, four days after 9-11, advised G.W. Bush to invade Iraq.

Citing Iran’s “covert” facility, Wolfowitz claims it is “clear that Iran’s rulers are pursuing nuclear weapons.…Time is running out.” Without a hint of irony, he argues that Iran (not Israel) “is a crucial test of whether the path to a nuclear-free world is a realistic one or simply a dangerous pipe dream.” In calling for “crippling sanctions,” Howard Berman, Jewish chairman of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, expressed similar concerns as did Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, senior Republican on the Committee and also Jewish.

If pro-Israelis cannot induce a war with Iran, the ensuing stability will enable people to identify who fixed the intelligence that deceived the U.S. to invade Iraq. Only one nation possesses the means, motive, opportunity and stable nation state intelligence to mount a covert operation over the lengthy period required to pre-stage, staff, orchestrate and successfully cover-up such an act.

The evidence points to the same network of government insiders and media proponents now hyping Iran. Who benefitted from war with Iraq? Who benefits from war with Iran? Not the U.S. or its allies unless, despite the evidence, Israel is viewed as an ally–rather than an enemy within.

Can the U.S. Muster a Breakthrough Strategy?

Like Afghanistan, Iran does not have a military solution. Nor does Iraq. Geopolitically, the greatest casualty of war in the region was the United States – its credibility tattered, its military overextended and its finances devastated by a debt-financed war that Nobel laureate economist Joseph Stiglitz projects could reach $3,000 billion. Compare that with the speedy exit and a $50 billion outlay that Wolfowitz assured policy-makers could be recovered from sales of Iraqi oil.

Those who induced that invasion persuaded Americans to commit economic and geopolitical hari-kari. No external force could have defeated the sole remaining super power. Instead the U.S. was deceived—by a purported ally—to defeat itself by an ill-advised reaction to the provocation of a mass murder on U.S. soil.

The only sensible and sustainable solution is one that serves unmet needs in the region while also restoring the credibility of the U.S. as a proponent of informed choice and free enterprise. While making transparent the common source of the deceit that induced the U.S. to war, policy-makers can also lay the foundation to preclude such duplicity in the future. That requires consultation among the U.S., its true allies and those nations in the region most affected by this treachery.

Only a design solution can counter today’s systemic sources of conflict, including the extremism fueled by extremes in education, opportunity, wealth and income. As with the fixed intelligence that induced the U.S. to war in Iraq, those sources of conflict are obscured by a compliant and complicit media with an undisclosed pro-Israeli bias.

A transnational network of think tanks could expose in real time how facts are displaced by what “the mark” can be deceived to believe. With the media dominance of pro-Israelis in the U.S., Canada, the U.K., Germany and other Western allies, that task must include the capacity to show how this deceit operates in plain sight yet, to date, with impunity. Absent such transparency, systems of governance reliant on informed consent will continue to be manipulated to their detriment by those who hide behind the very freedoms that such systems are meant to protect.

Running parallel with that transparency initiative must be an education program that deploys the best available technology to close the gaps in learning that sustain extremes in opportunity. Only a truly international effort can succeed in that essential task. Only trans-cultural education can preempt the mental manipulation that induced war in Iraq and now pursues war with Iran as proponents of The Clash of Civilizations gradually transform that concept into a reality.

What we now see emerging is yet another example of how wars are induced in the Information Age. Why would anyone expect modern warfare to be waged in any other way? As the common source of this duplicity becomes transparent, the solution will become apparent.

Lasting peace requires a Marshall Plan able to accelerate the transition to the Knowledge Society. This systemic challenge cannot be addressed absent a systemic strategy. The restoration of friendly and cooperative relations must include the practical steps required to heal this widening divide with education at the core.

Ahmadinejad

U.S. Interests vs. The Jewish State

Barack Obama’s recent conduct at the U.N. removed all remaining doubt as to Israeli influence inside this latest U.S. presidency. When he uttered the phrase “the Jewish state of Israel,” he provided precisely the provocation required to ensure that peace in the Middle East will continue to be deferred.

When, in May 1948, Christian-Zionist Harry Truman agreed to recognize an enclave of Jewish-Zionist extremists as a nation state, he struck out “Jewish state” and wrote the “state of Israel.” Despite assurances from Zionist lobbyist Chaim Weizmann that Israel would be a democracy, Truman feared the Zionist state might become what it became: a racist theocracy committed to an expansionist agenda that endangers U.S. interests in the region.

Barack Obama is a political product of Chicago’s West Side Jewish community and the nation’s “first Jewish president” according to former Clinton White House counsel Abner Mikva. Though branded an agent of change, when the zeitgeist of his campaign suggested that change might encompass a shift in the U.S.-Israeli relationship, those Ashkenazim who produced this presidential phenomenon let their displeasure be known.

The candidate of change quickly made the requisite rounds of pro-Israeli venues where he promised his benefactors there would be no change in an entangled alliance that, in retrospect, is the primary reason the U.S. finds itself at war in the Middle East. His U.N. performance thrilled those colonial Zionists whose duplicity troubled Truman. Meanwhile his “Jewish state” comment was guaranteed to inflame tensions in the region.

In the lead-up to this speech, Israelis told Obama what they intended to do—and then did it. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced that he would use agreed-to terms of the Road Map to trade for stronger action against Iran. When Obama blinked and failed to insist that Israel comply with the agreed-to freeze on settlements, Netanyahu got what he sought—an emphasis on war with Iran rather than peace with the Palestinians.

Rather than announcing progress in negotiations, Obama announced only his hope that negotiations could soon resume—maybe. When Tel Aviv saw how easily they outwitted this novice negotiator, their agenda became more audacious. Obama’s mention of the code phrase “Jewish state” confirmed the ongoing role of the same stage managers who flew him directly from his speech in Cairo to a photo-op at Germany’s Buchenwald death camp.

Confirming the Zionists’ insider influence, Rahm Emanuel, widely described as the most powerful Chief of Staff in decades, assumed a prominent position in the U.N. chamber alongside the Secretary of State, the U.N. Ambassador and the National Security Adviser.

As with Cairo, Obama not only missed another opportunity to build goodwill, he missed a chance to restore the tattered credibility of the U.S after eight years of a Christian-Zionist president. Instead of progress toward peace, he offered yet another photo-op featuring Israeli and Palestinian leaders in yet another handshake signifying … nothing.

At what point will Americans realize they’ve been played for the fool by a purported ally? At what point does presidential conduct become culpable complicity?  Why would The New York Times report a decline in Barack Obama’s approval ratings in Israel?

Pundits put a positive spin on this foreign policy disaster by suggesting that Obama boxed Netanyahu in by finessing the settlements issue and forcing the Israeli leader to mention final status negotiations. That analysis misses the point. For Tel Aviv, there is no final status. The point of this six-decade process is more process—to avoid resolution.

Should Washington maneuver Israel into a box, Tel Aviv will collapse yet another coalition government. Or announce a resignation. That was Ben-Gurion’s ruse in June 1963 when John F. Kennedy insisted on inspections to stop Israel’s nuclear arms program. Ehud Olmert used the same negotiating tactic when it appeared that the Road Map could lead to a final status agreement. His well-timed resignation brought back Netanyahu.

The only party in a box is the U.S. The way out is to end this entangled alliance and the perils to U.S. interests that this “special relationship” was certain to create. In practical effect, in order to keep an Israeli government intact with which to negotiate, the U.S. must satisfy the most right-wing elements of the most right-wing political party of an infamously right-wing foreign government. How can that be in America’s interest?

Harry Truman’s recognition of this enclave as a legitimate state was an overwrought reaction to a unique combination of domestic and international circumstances that were manipulated to the advantage of violent religious extremists. Their ethnic cleansing of Palestine has yet to be either acknowledged or addressed.

After six decades of occupation and oppression, the best a U.S. president could offer Palestinians was an assurance that a U.S. ally—should negotiations resume—would come to the table with “clear terms of reference.” What greater insult could a U.S. president inflict on the Arab world than such an empty promise?

Obama’s performance was pathetic. Also, in effect, he gave the green light for another mass murder in the U.S. or in the European Union. As part of the pre-staging of another plausible rationale for the invasion of yet another Middle Eastern nation, mainstream U.S. media misrepresented remarks to the U.N. by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, giving credence to Iran as a nuclear threat. That Evil Doer portrayal is consistent with the pre-staging of other operations by which the U.S. was induced to war on false pretenses.

The next incident could be nuclear. While Obama was conceding to Israeli demands, Defense Minister Ehud Barack was meeting with U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates to assure him that Tel Aviv may yet attack Iran. In yet another signal to a worldwide audience about just who shapes U.S. foreign policy, the Pentagon chief was accompanied by Dennis Ross who joined Obama’s Iran advisory team from a think tank affiliate of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.

For the first time in history, a U.S. president chaired a meeting of the U.N. Security Council. Presented with an occasion to caution an ally not to aggravate the nuclear arms race that Kennedy sought to halt in its infancy, Obama focused instead on Iran, forgoing a warning to the one nation in the Middle East known to have a nuclear arsenal. And the only nation able to deliver on the threat of deployment.

As an additional insult to Arab nations, the U.S. negotiating team urged—despite no sign of good faith by Tel Aviv—that those nations offer diplomatic gestures of goodwill. Or make “substantive concessions” as Netanyahu put it. No reason was offered why, after enduring more than sixty years of nonstop duplicity, they should agree to do so.

For anyone to assume or suggest that Israel is operating in good faith reflects a perilous misreading of history. What we just witnessed at the U.N. is how warfare is waged in the Information Age. This was neither the behavior of a U.S. ally nor a nation deserving U.S. support, friendship, arms or even recognition. Any further appeasement of this extremist enclave and Obama can rightly be charged with breach of his oath of office to defend the U.S. from all enemies, both domestic and foreign.

Ahmadinejad

Must the U.S. Remain a Tool To Be Exploited by Other Nations?

The election crisis in Iran began May 18th when President Obama granted Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu a White House press conference. From that high profile pulpit, this Likud Party leader announced that Iran was Israel’s top priority and that Israeli settlements would continue to expand despite U.S. objections.

By providing that opening to right-wing Israeli interests, Obama enabled a geopolitical manipulation that would not mature until a month later when a post-election crisis in Iran provided an opportunity to vilify Tehran while proceeding with the settlements.

The catalyst for this crisis was a social network “Twitter attack” in Iran that began June 13th, the day after the election. “IranElection” was the most popular keyword for tens of thousands of tweets, half of them featuring the same profile photo. Over 40% of the Twitter.com users came from the U.S., lending plausibility to the charge that this was not an Israeli but a U.S. operation meant to destabilize Iran by spreading charges of election fraud.

Mainstream media declined to mention that pre-election polling showed President Ahmadinejad a two-to-one favorite. Nor was there any reference to his opponent’s plans to privatize the oil and gas industry. Aware of how that path led to an entrenched oligarchy in Russia, it’s easy to see why mainstream Iranians rejected that future.

Asked about Tehran’s response to the protests, Netanyahu said “the true nature of this regime has been unmasked….this is a regime that oppresses its people.” The crisis also enabled him again to portray Iran’s nuclear program as “an international danger” that “should be dealt with by an international effort led by the United States.”

For those concerned at Israeli influence over U.S. foreign policy, Obama’s comment on June 23rd offered hope. In assessing this multi-front crisis, he noted that the U.S. “is not a tool to be exploited by other nations.”

If not Israel, what nation can exploit the U.S.—from the inside? What nation benefits from this crisis? If not Tel Aviv, what government has the means, motive, opportunity and stable nation state intelligence to conduct such operations?

If the U.S. is induced to invade Iran, no plausible outcome would be successful at preventing the conflict from spreading—lending plausibility to the widely touted Clash of Civilizations. Just as Israel seeks to delegitimize and vilify Iran, so too an attack on Iran would see the U.S. discredited and despised for allowing itself—yet again—to be exploited by Israel.

For Tehran to enrich uranium poses no threat to U.S. interests. President Kennedy saw the real threat. He sought in June 1963 to ensure that Israel did not develop nuclear weapons. His assassination brought to office a president with different priorities.

Citing an “existential threat” from Iran, a nuclear-armed Israel now deploys increasingly transparent efforts to exploit its “special relationship” with the U.S. to advance its interests. Yet war game strategists agree that an attack—any attack—would ignite a wave of anti-Americanism, further weakening us financially, militarily and diplomatically. That outcome is well known both in Washington and in Tel Aviv. These same pro-Israeli exploiters induced the U.S. to invade Iraq with the allure of a quick victory more than six years ago.

By June 23rd, Netanyahu was sufficiently emboldened to announce that even arguing about the settlements was “a waste of time.” Meanwhile Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak gave the green light for a settlement covering 212 acres of Palestinian farmland far from the main settlement blocs and several miles inside the West Bank.

While insisting “our hand is extended for peace,” Tel Aviv once again insisted on conditions certain to preclude peace. For veterans of this duplicity, this behavior is all too familiar. During the 1956 Sinai war, a captured Egyptian colonel conceded that his troops were put on high alert every time David Ben-Gurion insisted “our hands are extended for peace.”

To his credit, Obama has not—as yet—allowed himself to be drawn deeply into the fray in Iran. It’s unclear how much of the credit is due to a national security team familiar with how Tel Aviv exploits its allies to wage wars for Greater Israel. The Joint Chiefs may well stand united in their opposition, hardened by their experience with pro-Israelis who fixed the intelligence that induced our invasion of Iraq.

Barack Obama enabled this behavior by granting an Israeli leader a global platform. Is this ‘candidate of change’ advising Americans to no longer view Israel as an ally? That’s the change Tel Aviv most fears. Is he signaling what the facts confirm: Israel is neither friend nor ally but a deceiver and an enemy within? Is this president prepared to put a priority on holding accountable those who gave aid and comfort to these exploiters?