Bush’s Diplomatic Triumphs leading America to a Global Catastrophe: Part Three
Some Characteristics of Bush’s Middle Eastern Surge.
Summary of Bush’s Diplomatic Successes.
Bush’s likudnik strategy for denouncing iran over its non-existent nuclear weapons, despite being entirely at odds with america’s geopolitical interests, has achieved some remarkable diplomatic successes. He has convinced many governments to support the isolation of iran from the world community either to force its capitulation or as a prelude to a military attack. The bush regime lured india away from its solidarity with iran in the non-aligned movement so that it voted in favour of sanctions against iran. In iraq, bush came close to wooing al-hakim and sciri away from their shiite alliance with moktada al-sadr and from their fealty towards iran. Although not successful in achieving this objective he has succeeded in his alternative plan of pressuring the iraqi prime minister, al-maliki, to agree to the use of the iraqi army and police to suppress not only sunni militias but al-sadr’s mahdi army. If this tactic does not work out to his satisfaction, bush could try again to replace al-maliki with al-hakim to help the americans take on the mahdi army. In what is a major diplomatic triumph, bush has lured sunni arab autocrats into public opposition to iran. Under pressure from sunni arab states, the bush regime seems to have accommodated itself to president musharraf’s predicaments in afghanistan and pakistan and, in return, he is co-operating with nato to contain iran. Bush is pushing for the jos’s inclusion in nato to significantly increase the protection that the over-industrialized nations offer to the racist state when it launches illegal, pre-emptive attacks on its neighbours. A variety of efforts, so far unsuccessful, are being made to open up a divorce between syria and iran. In what could be considered his biggest diplomatic success, bush suddenly adopted a conciliatory tone towards china and, as a consequence, was able to persuade the chinese to support illegal un sanctions against iran despite their massive investments in the country. It is possible bush even won over putin – although there are serious doubts about this. What is certain is that both russia and china are now voting against a country which many believed was their ally. Bush has also successfully nudged european countries to the edge of participation in a war against iran they had previously been intent on avoiding. During america’s proxy zionist invasion of iraq, both france and germany refused to support the diplomatic moves leading to war but currently they are not merely echoing bush’s likudnik propaganda they have allowed themselves to drift militarily into a position where it would be difficult for them to avoid involvement in the outbreak of a war with iran. They have become so entangled with the american navy in the gulf they will probably be unable to avoid iranian retaliation if the americans attack iran. Bush has also achieved a minor diplomatic success in turkey. Saudi commentators believe there is now a sunni alliance stretching from turkey to pakistan to combat iran.
The american invasion and occupation of iraq has turned into such a barbaric disaster that the country was blatantly better off under saddam. Even worse is that by undermining the regional balance of power between sunni and shia states and by provoking clashes between sunnis and shias in iraq, the americans have boosted the potential for conflicts throughout the middle east. The americans, the jos, and sunni arab despots, are all deliberately trying to foster a religious war throughout the middle east whilst democratic shia forces desperately try and restore the alliance between sunnis and shias. From bush’s perspective, however, his recent wide-ranging diplomatic successes encourage him to believe that, despite these growing disasters, a military victory in iraq and the middle east is still feasible. He has now garnered the political, and perhaps even the military, support needed to launch his biggest gamble - triggering a war against iran to redeem his failures in the middle east. If it wasn’t for these diplomatic successes then bush might have concluded there was no point in persisting with his grand likudnik strategy. Bush is hoping a war against iran might trigger conflicts throughout the middle east which would eventually enable the jos to establish its dominance over the entire region. For a short while he might once again celebrate ‘mission accomplished’. But what has happened in iraq might eventually erupt across the whole of the middle east. Such a humanitarian catastrophe in the middle east would bring huge gains to the jos but have a catastrophic economic and military impact on america.
The Neocons’ Resurgence after November’s Electoral Defeats.
The bush regime has come through the political setbacks of november’s mid term elections and is vigorously pushing ahead with its likudnik strategy. It has decided to send additional troops to iraq in the hope of winning a military victory. "Bush's goal in Iraq, he said at the photo op with Blair, is 'victory.'" Bush reasserted his belief that "victory in Iraq is achievable" at his Wednesday press conference." (Sidney Blumenthal ‘Behind Bush's "new way forward" http://fairuse.100webcustomers.com/fairenough/salon045.html December 20, 2006). One of the benefits of having got through november’s political difficulties is that bush no longer has to try and uphold the absurd propaganda that the american military is winning in iraq. He has adopted what must seem to the american public to be a much more feasible policy – the adoption of new tactics to try and achieve a military victory in iraq.
The likudniks in the bush regime are even more ascendant now than they were before november 2006. Despite the military catastrophe in iraq, the loss of important jewish, and jew-ish, neocons from the bush regime, increasing public and political opposition to the war in iraq, and little public enthusiasm for another war against iran, bush continues to pursue the likudniks’ plan for the jewish domination of the middle east. He ignored the policy recommendations put forward by the iraqi study group and choose to implement the jewish neocons’ plan for sending additional troops to iraq. "But other neocons have moved back into the mainstream of steering Iraq policy. A key part of the new Iraq plan that President Bush is expected to announce next week - a surge in U.S. troops coupled with a more focused counterinsurgency effort - has been one of the chief recommendations of these neocons since the fall of Saddam Hussein. They have long advocated for a more classic counterinsurgency campaign: a manpower-heavy operation that would take U.S. soldiers out of their large bases dotted across the country and push them into small outposts in troubled towns and neighborhoods to interact with ordinary Iraqis. The main reason for the new ascendancy of the neocon recommendations, said Kristol, is that "the Rumsfeld-Abizaid-Casey theory was tried and was found wanting. . . . Some of us challenged it very early on, but, of course, then we were just challenging it as a competing theory."" (Peter Spiegel ‘Neocons' hand seen in 'the surge': They push plan to boost troops in Iraq - January 04. 2007 ‘Neocons' hand seen in 'the surge': They push plan to boost troops in Iraq’ http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070104/REPOSITORY/701040393/1013/48HOURS January 04. 2007).
Even worse is the strong suspicion that sending more troops to iraq is a mere stepping stone to an attack on iran. "There is talk of sending more troops to Iraq, of tightening sanctions against Iran and Syria, of mobilising "moderate" Arab states against "extremists", of arming the Fouad Siniora government in Lebanon against Hezbollah, and the Fatah forces of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas against the Hamas government." (Patrick Seale ‘Attack on Iran could bring devastation to Arab world’ http://www.businessday.co.za/articles/topstories.aspx?ID=BD4A351269 January 04, 2007).
Most dramatically of all, however, is that bush used his january 10th ‘address to the nation on the iraq war’ and his ‘state of the union’ speech to announce he was sending a second aircraft carrier to the persian gulf and would be supplying patriot anti-missile systems to america’s middle eastern allies. These moves clearly have nothing to do with iraq but are explicitly aimed at iran. "On January 15, the day before the "GCC plus two" communiqué, US Defence Secretary Robert Gates gave a news conference at NATO headquarters in Brussels, Belgium. He described the beefing up of America’s Middle East forces as reaffirming "our determination to be a strong presence in that area for a long time into the future." (Jean Shaoul and Chris Marsden ‘Rice’s Middle East tour: Arab regimes back US war drive in Iraq and Iran’ http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/jan2007/rice-j19.shtml January 19, 2007); "The Middle East isn't a region to be dominated by Iran. The Gulf isn't a body of water to be controlled by Iran. That's why we've seen the United States station two carrier battle groups in the region," Burns said in an address to the Dubai-based Gulf Research Center, an influential think-tank." (Jim Krane ‘U.S. warns Iran to back down’ http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/news/world/16525948.htm January 23, 2007). In his speeches bush dramatically increased the tempo of his anti-iranian propaganda in a way that is all too reminiscent of the build up to the invasion of iraq. "In sum, the Bush Administration seems to have concluded that Iran is guilty until proven innocent and continues to maintain that the Persian Gulf belongs to Americans – not to Persians – setting the stage for a potential military strike." (Larisa Alexandrovna and Muriel Kane ‘Escalation of US Iran military planning part of six-year Administration push’ http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Iran_The_Road_to_Confrontation_0123.html January 23, 2007).
The Neocons’ getting Realists to Implement their Strategy.
The irony of the current situation is that bush seems to be implementing the latest stage of his likudnik strategy with those reputed to be realists who supposedly abhor this strategy. He replaced a jew-ish neocon, donald rumsveld, with a so-called realist. Robert gates who was given the job of implementing a new military strategy in iraq which is even more to the neocons’ satisfaction than the one that had been pursued by rumsveld. Juan cole suggested that bush replaced other key figures with realists but, as has since become apparent, all of them are now devoting themselves to the implementation of bush’s grandiose likudnik strategy. "I'm stricken with a case of the "what ifs" and "if onlys"! What if Gates had been at the Pentagon in 2003 and Petraeus had been in charge of the US military in Iraq and Crocker had been there instead of Paul Bremer? These are competent professionals who know what they are doing. Gates is clear-sighted enough to tell Congress that the US is not winning in Iraq, unlike his smooth-talking, arrogant and flighty predecessor. Petraeus is among the real experts on counter-insurgency, and did a fine job of making friends and mending fences when he was in charge of Mosul. Crocker has been ambassador to Kuwait, Syria, Lebanon and Pakistan, and knows the region intimately (as does Khalilzad). Bremer had been ambassador to . . . Holland. Despite all the talk of the resurgence of the Neoconservatives with their "surge" (actually ramped up occupation) plan, this team is the farthest from Neoconservative desires that you could possibly get." (Juan Cole ‘The Adults take Charge’ http://www.juancole.com/2007_01_01_juanricole_archive.html January 05, 2007).
A Repeat of Tactics used in the Lead up to the Invasion of Iraq.
In his effort to push america into an attack on iran, bush has been regurgitating the tactics that were employed so successfully in previous attacks on iraq. First of all there are the outright lies about iran’s non-existent wmd to win over what seems to be a population suffering from attention deficit disorder and permanent gullibility. Secondly, whereas the bush regime had been blaming al qaeda for the attacks on the american military in iraq, (fabricated) evidence has suddenly emerged that iran is responsible for the attacks. "The Bush regime suddenly changed its line and now blames Iran instead of al-Qaeda for its defeat in Iraq." (Paul Craig Roberts ‘The Crime of the Century’ http://www.antiwar.com/roberts/?articleid=10432 January 31, 2007). Then the bush regime manipulates and pressures countries into supporting un sanctions against iran to cripple the country in the same way sanctions crippled iraq in the 1990s. Finally, bush is assembling allies to militarily attack iran just like his father assembled the ‘coalition of the willing’ to remove the iraqi military from kuwait during the first gulf war. Naval forces from britain, france, and the gulf state countries, are helping the american navy to enforce un sanctions against iran. Bush’s likudnik regime may once again be spreading almost the same blatant lies and fabrications as it did against saddam prior to the invasion of iraq but this doesn’t make such tactics any the less effective in winning support amongst the american public, and the international community, for the isolation of iran. Bush is deftly putting the pieces of the jigsaw together and the picture is not a happy one for iran.
Diplomatic Successes – Domestic Difficulties.
Whether bush will have enough political support in congress or the country as a whole to sustain the implementation of his neocon policies for the rest of his term in office is difficult to say but this is unlikely to affect his determination to implement such catastrophic likudnik fantasies. America’s ruling jewish elite wants more wars in the middle east – especially because it’s only american lives, treasure, and reputation, that are being sacrificed. And bush desperately wants to achieve that elusive victory to show the world he is not a serial loser, that his political life has not been the same succession of failures as his private life. What is striking is that his considerable diplomatic successes on the international front for the isolation of iran stand in stark contrast to his failures on the domestic front to win public approval for an attack on iran. This is a complete reversal of the situation when he first became president and had considerable domestic support amidst considerable international apprehension.
Bush’s Predicament being Mirrored around the World.
Although opinion polls in america have suggested the bush regime has succeeded in winning some support for an american attack on iran, even majority support spasmodically, the november mid-term elections showed there is no serious majority for this policy. Bush’s continual promotion of extreme likudnik policies seems to be increasingly alienating public opinion. He refuses to adopt policies he knows would be popular and defiantly promotes policies he knows are unpopular. Dick cheney has also made clear his disdain for the views of the american electorate. "Asked about a US Senate resolution disapproving of the "surge" of US troops to Iraq, Vice President Cheney said, "It won't stop us."" (John Pilger ‘Iran: A War Is Coming’ http://www.antiwar.com/pilger/?articleid=10452 February 3, 2007). Bush tramples over public, and increasingly congressional, opinions because he believes his likudnik policies will enable him to reverse his military failures in iraq with a military victory over iran. By persuading or pressurizing other governments around the world into supporting his likudnik policies, bush is also forcing these governments to treat their electorates with contempt. Bush’s devotion to the likudnik strategy and his disdain for the majority of americans who oppose this strategy, is spreading like a contagious disease to other governments around the world.
Tony blair finds himself in virtually the same political predicament as george bush. His promotion of fundamentalist likudnik policies has alienated substantial sections of the british public despite the jewish dominated media’s incessant propaganda hyping up the critical importance of the war in iraq and a war against iran. Since his term in office is rapidly coming to an end, he is using this freedom to spend more time and effort on pushing the likudnik agenda. The fact that his popularity ratings are plummeting does nothing to dissuade him from promoting this strategy. On the contrary, it just seems to provoke him into becoming even more of a warmonger making even more extremist pronouncements. The labour government and the labour party is suffering from the backwash from blair’s racist rantings and yet blair doesn’t seem in the least bit bothered that he seems to be singlehandedly ruining the election prospects of his government and his party. Blair seems insistent on sacrificing to the cause of jewish supremacism in the middle east not only his party, but his government, and his country. But then again britain’s jewish lobby has paid for blair’s jewish policies so he’s just delivering what he’s been paid to do.
The divorce between pro-likudnik rulers and anti-likudnik subjects is reaching critical levels in saudi arabia and other sunni arab despotic states. A clear majority of sunni moslems detest the jos’s racist persecution of palestinians and the jewish theft of palestinian land. They are revolted by their rulers servility towards the jos. They are even more appalled at the idea of their rulers encouraging a jewish or judaeo-american attack on another islamic country just because it happens to be governed by shia moslems. Over the summer 2006, the vast majority of sunnis in the greater middle east supported hezbollah’s heroic resistance against the jos’s appalling attack on lebanese civilians – a repeat of the decimation these jewish nazis have inflicted on palestinians. Despite the fact that they are shias, the two most popular leaders in the sunni world are hassan nasrallah and mahmoud ahmadinejad. "Compare it with the fact that Nasrallah, Khalid Meshal from Hamas and Ahmadinejad are the three most popular Muslim leaders among the Egyptian masses." (Pepe Escobar ‘The 'axis of fear' is born’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IB02Ak01.html February 02, 2007). The shia members of sunni dominated communities are even more alienated by their sunni rulers’ likudnik policies. Just how long sunni arab despots can go on defying and antagonizing their subjects is not known but their decreasing popular support makes them highly vulnerable. It is sunni arab despots who are deliberately fanning the flames of a religious war in the middle east whilst their subjects live in peace with each other.
In pakistan, general musharraf faces similar political problems. Pakistan is far more democratic than sunni arab states but the level of violence between rulers and ruled is much greater. The more that musharraf implements america’s likudnik policies, the more likely he is to trigger revolts amongst the country’s islamic political parties and religiously minded populace. The challenges to his rule could put not merely his survival in office at risk but his physical survival.
The turkish government faces similar structural problems as pakistan. Turkey is a democratic moslem society ruled by moslem politicians. But the turkish military is a lot more secular and much more sympathetic to the jos and to america. Most turkish people were vehemently opposed to any governmental participation in the american invasion of iraq. Only the secular turkish military supported the invasion. The more pressure the bush regime applies to the turkish government to support an attack on iran, the more it will undermine the turkish government and the more likely it is to cause civil conflicts. This conflict could end up destroying the country’s democratic institutions thereby bringing about the return to power of the turkish military.
In lebanon, the sunni dominated, fuad siniora government is funded by the saudis and the americans. Siniora’s semi-democratic, lebanese government is as divorced from a substantial segment of its electorate as any sunni dictator. It did not dare to publicly support the jos’s attacks on the shia section of lebanese society over the summer 2006 even though it conspired with the jos’s warmongering to eradicate hezbollah. It doesn’t dare to express its support for an american attack on iran because it knows this would further alienate the shias and possibly induce hezbollah to become involved in any iranian retaliation. Since december 2006, the siniora government has dismissed as irrelevant two enormous demonstrations organized by hezbollah and their christian and sunni allies. Both demonstrations were much bigger than those that toppled the previous government and led to the election of the march14 coalition government. And yet siniora not merely refused to accede to such huge displays of opposition, it refuses to negotiate or compromise with the opposition. The siniora government, its resolve stiffened by america, the jos, and saudi arabia, is bunkered into power and treats the interests and rights of a majority of lebanese society with contempt. There is little doubt that the lebanese constitution needs to be reformed to give the shiites political power proportionate to their demographic size and that new elections would result in a significant shift of power towards the opposition parties but the rump sinioran government sticks defiantly to the status quo.
In britain and america there have always been examples of governments implementing unpopular policies so there is still plenty of leeway before public alienation starts spilling over into more serious expressions of opposition. But such a leeway in many other countries in the greater middle east is much less generous.
The bush disease of total loyalty to the likudnik cause coupled with utter disdain for american interests and american public opinion, has spread contagiously to european governments, sunni arab dictatorships, pakistan, and perhaps even turkey. Bush started off by refusing to negotiate or listen to his enemies such as the taliban in afghanistan, iran, and syria, even though they wanted peace with america. Now his commitment to the likudnik cause has reached such heights of self righteousness he refuses to listen to a majority of american public opinion. Tony blair in britain acts as if he was a jewish ambassador to a foreign country and treats his own people and his own country with the same contempt that siniora treats the lebanese people. The reason so many governments seem to be drifting away from any concern with the views and interests of their own people is because they are much more concerned with implementing the policies of their domestic jewish lobbies and bush’s likudnik policies. Around the world, governments forced by internal and external pressures into adopting likudnik policies, are increasingly alienating their own people/electorates.
The Farce of the Likudniks’ Pro-Democracy Propaganda.
The bush regime did not invade iraq because it wanted to establish democracy in that country. It had been obsessed with invading iraq even before the pentagon and new york bombings provided it with the excuse for an invasion. Its initial plan had been no more ambitious than swopping ahmad chalabi for saddam hussein whilst leaving virtually everything else in place. It was only after the failure of this policy, and the consequent insistence of iraq’s leading religious authority on democratic elections, that the likudnik dominated bush regime started talking grandiosely about their mission to bring democracy to the middle east. Hoisted by their own petard they supported elections in iraq, egypt, and palestine, which led to convincing victories by radical islamic parties that opposed the jos and its american strategic ally. The bush regime quickly dropped the implementation of its democratic principles even though it continued to present itself as being intent on establishing democracies in all countries around the world.
Condoleezza rice tries to win diplomatic support for her likudnik policies by occasionally indulging in fantasies of democratizing the middle east and protecting middle eastern democracies from being undermined by anti-democratic islamic forces. "As Rice explained in her testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on January 11, "This is a different Middle East. This Middle East is a Middle East in which there really is a new alignment of forces. On one side are reformers and responsible leaders, who seek to advance their interests peacefully, politically and diplomatically. On the other side are extremists of every sect and ethnicity who use violence to spread chaos, undermine democratic governance, and to impose an agenda of hatred and intolerance. On one side of that divide are the Gulf countries, including Saudi Arabia and the other countries of the Gulf, Egypt, Jordan, the young democracies of Lebanon, the Palestinian territories led by Mahmoud Abbas, and Iraq. On the other side of that divide are Iran, Syria, Hezbollah and Hamas. I think we have to understand that that is the fundamental divide."" (Jean Shaoul and Chris Marsden ‘Rice’s Middle East tour: Arab regimes back US war drive in Iraq and Iran’ http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/jan2007/rice-j19.shtml January 19, 2007).
Rice’s "fundamental divide" is illusory. On the positive side she places, saudi arabia (monarchy, sunni); egypt (dictatorship, sunni); kuwait, qatar, bahrain, the united arab emirates, and oman (monarchies, sunni); president siniora (opposed to full scale democratic reforms, sunni); president abbas (democratically elected, sunni); iraq; and afghanistan. Issandr el amrani suggests a new acronym for america’s sunni despots. "Since September 2006, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Vice President Dick Cheney and other senior administration officials have made trips to the Middle East to rally the support of what Rice has described as the "moderate mainstream" Arab states against Iran. This group has now been formalized as the "GCC + 2," meaning the six members of the Gulf Cooperation Council as well as Egypt and Jordan. I suggest that this new coalition be renamed to something less technocratic: the Sunni Arab-Dominated Dictatorships Against the Mullahs, or SADDAM." (Issandr El Amrani ‘The New Saddam’ http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2007/01/25/the_new_saddam.php January 25, 2007). The negative side she places iran (a substantial democracy, shiite); hezbollah (a democratic political party demanding full democratic reforms in lebanon, shiite); and hamas, (democratically elected, sunni). The real divide is between sunni despots and the vast majority of moslems who live in peace with each other and who want greater democracy.
It is true that the bush regime has helped to foster democratic reforms in palestine, lebanon, afghanistan, and iraq. In themselves, these achievements would be worthy of celebration but this does not tell the whole story because bush has also undermined democracy in palestine (allowing the jos to destroy hamas); lebanon (allowing the jos to attack lebanon and refusing to support full-scale democratic reforms); and afghanistan and iraq (refusing to allow these countries to enjoy democratic sovereignty). The increasingly dictatorial bush regime has ruthlessly undermined the most democratic elements found in the middle east i.e. iran, hezbollah, and hamas, because he doesn’t like their democratic policies.
Bush’s policies in the middle east have nothing to do with democratization. They are intent on boosting jewish supremacism even if this means destroying any trace of democracy in the region. In order for bush to win the support of SADDAM governments for his likudnik strategy he’s had to drop demands for an increase in democracy in those countries. "The new SADDAM is much more collaborative (and less mercurial) than the old Saddam. The aging autocrats and puppet kings that make it up are getting some nice trade-offs for their support, most notably the abandonment of the Bush administration’s last policy du jour, the "Forward Strategy for Freedom." You may remember another Bush speech - delivered at his inauguration in 2005 - in which he said: "All who live in tyranny and hopelessness can know: The United States will not ignore your oppression, or excuse your oppressors. When you stand for your liberty, we will stand with you." Well, with the new SADDAM policy, you get something more along the lines of "I know we previously encouraged you to stand for liberty and all that, but if you live in tyranny and hopelessness we will ignore your oppression and excuse your oppressors. When you stand for liberty, we will look the other way." (Issandr El Amrani ‘The New Saddam’ http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2007/01/25/the_new_saddam.php January 25, 2007).
Stirring up divisions between Sunnis and Shias.
For bush to succeed in promoting the grand likudnik strategy he needs to ‘divide and rule’ i.e. stir up conflict between sunnis and shias. "The new anti-Iranian alliance with SADDAM appears to be deliberately reviving an old divide in the Islamic world between Sunni and Shia Muslims." (Issandr El Amrani ‘The New Saddam’ http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2007/01/25/the_new_saddam.php January 25, 2007).
The rulers in america, britain, the jos, sunni arab dictatorships, egypt, jordan, pakistan, lebanon, and turkey, are endeavoring to close the increasing gap between themselves and those they rule by boosting the volume of their pro-likudnik, anti-shia, propaganda. Whether this will persuade the arab masses to abandon their admiration for shia leaders and their opposition to a war against iran or, on the contrary, will further alienate even more people against their rulers has yet to become evident. "To convince their populations, which are generally aghast at U.S. policy in Iraq and Palestine, that Iran is the real enemy (although, unlike say Israel, it has never in modern history been the first to attack an Arab country or threatened to use nuclear weapons against them), the SADDAM regimes are engaging in anti-Shia hate-mongering. State-backed clerics and journalists are recuperating the poisonous anti-Shia language typically heard from Iraqi jihadists to lure public support away from Iran and its allies (notably Hezbollah and Hamas, which are widely admired for their resistance to Israel occupation and aggression) and prepare the ground for a confrontation with Tehran." (Issandr El Amrani ‘The New Saddam’ http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2007/01/25/the_new_saddam.php January 25, 2007).
The Likudniks at the Forefront of Global Terrorism.
Despite the bush regime’s assertions that al quaeda is the world’s leading terrorist organization, in reality this title is held by the likudniks in his regime. Firstly, the neocons make no effort to condemn sunni arab states for allowing people to fund and arm those in iraq who are killing american soldiers. Ordinary americans would be incensed that their troops are being killed by sunnis financed by wealthy individuals within sunni states but this doesn’t bother the likudniks since this slaughter is helping to bring about chaos in a country which once posed a military threat to the jos. The likudniks want chaos and instability in iraq so that it will never be able to recover and, once again, pose a military threat to the jos.
Secondly, the neocons have developed a close political alignment with iranian terrorists. "The big briefing planned by the Bush administration on supposed Iranian weapons shipments to Iraq had to be postponed because the presentation was judged exaggerated and unsubstantiated by Secretary of State Condi Rice and by Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates. So that raises the question of who was spearheading this presentation inside the Bush administration? Getting Iran is an obsession of the Neoconservatives at the American Enterprise Institute and their plants inside the administration, such as Iran-Contra felon Elliot Abrams in the National Security Council and David Wurmser and John Hannah on Cheney's rump Veep national security council. Many Neoconservatives and other sorts of wingnut have a secret alliance with the Marxist Islamist MEK terrorist organization, which feeds them allegations about Iran in Iraq just as Ahmad Chalabi used to with regard to the Baath regime in Iraq." (Juan Cole ‘Realists in US Tone Down Iran Accusations’ http://www.juancole.com/2007_02_01_juanricole_archive.html February 03, 2007).
Thirdly, the bush regime in afghanistan has recently offered an amnesty for all those in the taliban, including mullah omar, who have been involved in guerilla conflicts over the past 25 years, including those who have killed american soldiers. Fourthly, the likudniks in the bush regime are allowing kurdish terrorists to practice and operate in iraq, "the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), condemned as a terrorist organization by the U.S. and its NATO ally, Turkey." In 2004, the PKK set up "the Party for a Free Life in Kurdistan, or PEJAK, to fight for Kurdish autonomy in Iran. The PKK and its affiliates are spread through a region of some 35 million Kurds that straddles Turkey, Iraq, Iran and Syria. PEJAK, the newest group, claims to number thousands of recruits, and targets only Iran — a mission which has made PEJAK the subject of intense speculation that it is being used to undermine the radical Islamic regime of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad." (Kathy Gannon ‘In Iraq, Kurds train to battle Iran’ http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070202/ap_on_re_mi_ea/kurds_vs__iran February 02, 2007). The jos is the kurds’ biggest supporter. It supports an independent kurdish state brought about if necessary by violence against iran, syria and iraq.
Diplomatic Successes Breed a Geostrategic Catastrophe.
It is paradoxical indeed that bush has often been condemned for three major disasters and yet even when he achieves a string of major diplomatic successes all that this does is to lure him into implementing, even more recklessly, the rest of the likudnik agenda which could create an even greater catastrophe. The devastation of the middle east could be a geostrategic catastrophe for america. Bush’s likudnik-induced confrontation with iran could waste american lives and treasure to such an extent it could become a geostrategic catastrophe for america. It could damage the region’s fossil fuel industry to such an extent it might leave russia as the world’s fossil fuel goliath. Its sole achievement would be enhancing jewish supremacism - increasing the jos’s regional dominance. In america, jewish dominated universities, jewish dominated think tanks, the jewish dominated media, the jewish dominated political parties, the jewish dominated congress, the jewish lobby, and the jews in the bush regime, are conspiring to use the american military to benefit the jos at catastrophic expense for america. This is a conspiracy. It surely cannot be a mere coincidence that all of america’s likudnik dominated institutions are advocating policies that would benefit the jos whilst inflicting a disastrous collapse on american interests.
What would the New Middle East look Like?
Bush, blair, and olmert, are launching a global propaganda offensive against iran because of their fantasies about its non-existent nuclear weapons. Many commentators allege this likudnik triumvirate is using the issue to do something constructive - bring about regime change to foster democracy. But the triumvirate knows there is widespread popular support for the development of nuclear power and the acquisition of nuclear weapons so democratizing iran will boost both objectives. The idea of regime change in iran leading to greater democracy is a likudnik political bluff. What the triumvirate wants is help from autocratic sunni despots to oppress the shias in iran, iraq, and lebanon, and prevent them from establishing democracies. These highly unpopular, even despised, likudnik leaders are preparing to decimate iran as they have already decimated palestine, iraq, and lebanon. Likudnik extremists have outlined their desire to devastate iran and then do the same to all states in the greater middle east, including their despotic sunni allies. Iraq was not the end of america’s proxy zionist wars in the middle east and iran will not be their end. In america, jewish dominated universities, jewish dominated think tanks, the jewish dominated media, the jewish dominated political parties, the jewish dominated congress, the jewish lobby, and the jews in the bush regime will turn their poisonous, racist propaganda against saudi arab, egypt, and pakistan. This will entail further decades of conflict, barbarism, chaos, and impoverization. The ultimate objective of the current likudnik triumvirate, and the one which succeeds it, is jewish supremacism in the middle east.
The idea that all of these wars, and the chaos, and instability they bring, is for the benefit of america’s gigantic, multi-national, oil companies is absurd. These companies know they will never be able to extract fossil fuels from a middle east in turmoil. These oil companies have been defeated politically by the country’s jewish ruling elite and their only prospects for the future will be to find tiny islands of stability in the middle east and extract whatever tiny quantities of oil they can find. America’s gigantic multinational oil companies are just beggars at the table of their rich jewish masters. It has to be wondered whether left wingers, ideologically fixated on explaining american foreign policies solely in terms of the country’s oil interests, will realize the bankruptcy of their analysis before or after the bankruptcy of america’s oil companies.
The question that needs to be asked about bush’s likudnik policies is whether there is going to be anyone left in iraq after america’s hi-tech terrorists have finished torturing innocent iraqi civilians, wrecking every building in the country in search for previously non-existent enemies, and murdering anyone suspected of being in the vicinity of the enemy. Bush’s new neocon plan for a surge of troops to iraq entails the adoption of new tactics such as american troops kicking down the front doors of every home in baghdad. The calling cards that american troops leave behind them after smashing their way in to people’s homes is to blow a hole through one of the walls. Prior to the surge has started, the devastation in iraq is as follows. "Since 1991, according to Handicap International, the United States and Britain have dropped over 13 million cluster munitions on Iraq and strewn the countryside with more than 500 tons of toxic depleted uranium ammunition. A Johns Hopkins University study found that anywhere from 426,369 to 793,663 Iraqis have been killed since the March 2003 invasion. The war has also driven 1.8 million Iraqis out of their country and created 1.6 million internal refugees." (Conn Hallinan ‘"What We Did Was Insane ... Let's Try It Again": The Vishnu Strategy’ http://www.counterpunch.org/hallinan02032007.html February 3/4, 2007). Given the carnage the american military has already inflicted on iraq, bush’s psychotic focus on winning a military victory might compel him to pursue victory to the very end - even if it means nobody would be left to enjoy the fruits of his great victory. Bush seems to display no moral constraints to his ambition of winning a military victory in iraq. The deaths of millions of people and the emigration of millions more, seem immaterial to him. It has to be wondered just how much of a monster he is.
And just how many people are going to survive in the middle east after america, the jos, europe, and sunni arab despots, attack iran (and perhaps syria and lebanon) in the middle of the world’s greatest concentration of oil facilities and oil pipelines? "Among the consequences of Bush's monstrous war crime are the deaths of tens or hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians, the destruction of Iraqi civilian infrastructure, the outbreak of civil war between Iraqi Sunnis and Shi'ites, the spreading of this sectarian conflict throughout the Middle East, and the consequent destabilization of the region." (Paul Craig Roberts ‘The Crime of the Century’ http://www.antiwar.com/roberts/?articleid=10432 January 31, 2007). By the time these freedom loving, state-terrorists have finished, there might be few bipeds left in the middle east. Quite how a herd of bulls is going to protect the china shop of middle eastern oil is beyond reason.
The result of a war in the middle east would leave russia laughing all the way to the bank. If bush was worried about american dependency on middle eastern oil it has to be suspected that, after the start of a war in the middle east, he’ll have even more to worry about when america finds itself with an even greater reliance on russian fossil fuels. His anxieties will probably be even more acute considering that china would want these resources just as much as america and has nearly a billion petro-dollars to pay for them. Has bush been so severely indoctrinated into the jewish cause that he is willing to sacrifice his country’s own interests for the sake of the regional dominance of the racist jos and, even worse, would sacrifice america’s hyper-power status to the russian fossil fuel goliath? Is bush willing to sacrifice not merely american lives and treasure in a middle eastern war but america’s position as the world’s hyper power for the sake of jewish supremacism in the middle east?
Since the mid 1970s virtually no country around the world has been in the slightest bit bothered by iran’s stuttering efforts to acquire civil nuclear power. The only country that regarded it as a threat was the jos and immediately after america’s proxy zionist invasion of iraq, jewish lobbying organizations around the world began a campaign to persuade the world that iran was a danger to the whole world. The fact that in a mere four years, the global jewish lobby has been able to shift the political views of virtually all governments around the world to such a huge extent, even though many of these countries have substantial material interests in trade and investments with iran, is testimony to its phenomenal global power. The jos is by far and away the biggest threat to peace and stability around the world.
Summary of Bush’s Diplomatic Successes.
Bush’s likudnik strategy for denouncing iran over its non-existent nuclear weapons, despite being entirely at odds with america’s geopolitical interests, has achieved some remarkable diplomatic successes. He has convinced many governments to support the isolation of iran from the world community either to force its capitulation or as a prelude to a military attack. The bush regime lured india away from its solidarity with iran in the non-aligned movement so that it voted in favour of sanctions against iran. In iraq, bush came close to wooing al-hakim and sciri away from their shiite alliance with moktada al-sadr and from their fealty towards iran. Although not successful in achieving this objective he has succeeded in his alternative plan of pressuring the iraqi prime minister, al-maliki, to agree to the use of the iraqi army and police to suppress not only sunni militias but al-sadr’s mahdi army. If this tactic does not work out to his satisfaction, bush could try again to replace al-maliki with al-hakim to help the americans take on the mahdi army. In what is a major diplomatic triumph, bush has lured sunni arab autocrats into public opposition to iran. Under pressure from sunni arab states, the bush regime seems to have accommodated itself to president musharraf’s predicaments in afghanistan and pakistan and, in return, he is co-operating with nato to contain iran. Bush is pushing for the jos’s inclusion in nato to significantly increase the protection that the over-industrialized nations offer to the racist state when it launches illegal, pre-emptive attacks on its neighbours. A variety of efforts, so far unsuccessful, are being made to open up a divorce between syria and iran. In what could be considered his biggest diplomatic success, bush suddenly adopted a conciliatory tone towards china and, as a consequence, was able to persuade the chinese to support illegal un sanctions against iran despite their massive investments in the country. It is possible bush even won over putin – although there are serious doubts about this. What is certain is that both russia and china are now voting against a country which many believed was their ally. Bush has also successfully nudged european countries to the edge of participation in a war against iran they had previously been intent on avoiding. During america’s proxy zionist invasion of iraq, both france and germany refused to support the diplomatic moves leading to war but currently they are not merely echoing bush’s likudnik propaganda they have allowed themselves to drift militarily into a position where it would be difficult for them to avoid involvement in the outbreak of a war with iran. They have become so entangled with the american navy in the gulf they will probably be unable to avoid iranian retaliation if the americans attack iran. Bush has also achieved a minor diplomatic success in turkey. Saudi commentators believe there is now a sunni alliance stretching from turkey to pakistan to combat iran.
The american invasion and occupation of iraq has turned into such a barbaric disaster that the country was blatantly better off under saddam. Even worse is that by undermining the regional balance of power between sunni and shia states and by provoking clashes between sunnis and shias in iraq, the americans have boosted the potential for conflicts throughout the middle east. The americans, the jos, and sunni arab despots, are all deliberately trying to foster a religious war throughout the middle east whilst democratic shia forces desperately try and restore the alliance between sunnis and shias. From bush’s perspective, however, his recent wide-ranging diplomatic successes encourage him to believe that, despite these growing disasters, a military victory in iraq and the middle east is still feasible. He has now garnered the political, and perhaps even the military, support needed to launch his biggest gamble - triggering a war against iran to redeem his failures in the middle east. If it wasn’t for these diplomatic successes then bush might have concluded there was no point in persisting with his grand likudnik strategy. Bush is hoping a war against iran might trigger conflicts throughout the middle east which would eventually enable the jos to establish its dominance over the entire region. For a short while he might once again celebrate ‘mission accomplished’. But what has happened in iraq might eventually erupt across the whole of the middle east. Such a humanitarian catastrophe in the middle east would bring huge gains to the jos but have a catastrophic economic and military impact on america.
The Neocons’ Resurgence after November’s Electoral Defeats.
The bush regime has come through the political setbacks of november’s mid term elections and is vigorously pushing ahead with its likudnik strategy. It has decided to send additional troops to iraq in the hope of winning a military victory. "Bush's goal in Iraq, he said at the photo op with Blair, is 'victory.'" Bush reasserted his belief that "victory in Iraq is achievable" at his Wednesday press conference." (Sidney Blumenthal ‘Behind Bush's "new way forward" http://fairuse.100webcustomers.com/fairenough/salon045.html December 20, 2006). One of the benefits of having got through november’s political difficulties is that bush no longer has to try and uphold the absurd propaganda that the american military is winning in iraq. He has adopted what must seem to the american public to be a much more feasible policy – the adoption of new tactics to try and achieve a military victory in iraq.
The likudniks in the bush regime are even more ascendant now than they were before november 2006. Despite the military catastrophe in iraq, the loss of important jewish, and jew-ish, neocons from the bush regime, increasing public and political opposition to the war in iraq, and little public enthusiasm for another war against iran, bush continues to pursue the likudniks’ plan for the jewish domination of the middle east. He ignored the policy recommendations put forward by the iraqi study group and choose to implement the jewish neocons’ plan for sending additional troops to iraq. "But other neocons have moved back into the mainstream of steering Iraq policy. A key part of the new Iraq plan that President Bush is expected to announce next week - a surge in U.S. troops coupled with a more focused counterinsurgency effort - has been one of the chief recommendations of these neocons since the fall of Saddam Hussein. They have long advocated for a more classic counterinsurgency campaign: a manpower-heavy operation that would take U.S. soldiers out of their large bases dotted across the country and push them into small outposts in troubled towns and neighborhoods to interact with ordinary Iraqis. The main reason for the new ascendancy of the neocon recommendations, said Kristol, is that "the Rumsfeld-Abizaid-Casey theory was tried and was found wanting. . . . Some of us challenged it very early on, but, of course, then we were just challenging it as a competing theory."" (Peter Spiegel ‘Neocons' hand seen in 'the surge': They push plan to boost troops in Iraq - January 04. 2007 ‘Neocons' hand seen in 'the surge': They push plan to boost troops in Iraq’ http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070104/REPOSITORY/701040393/1013/48HOURS January 04. 2007).
Even worse is the strong suspicion that sending more troops to iraq is a mere stepping stone to an attack on iran. "There is talk of sending more troops to Iraq, of tightening sanctions against Iran and Syria, of mobilising "moderate" Arab states against "extremists", of arming the Fouad Siniora government in Lebanon against Hezbollah, and the Fatah forces of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas against the Hamas government." (Patrick Seale ‘Attack on Iran could bring devastation to Arab world’ http://www.businessday.co.za/articles/topstories.aspx?ID=BD4A351269 January 04, 2007).
Most dramatically of all, however, is that bush used his january 10th ‘address to the nation on the iraq war’ and his ‘state of the union’ speech to announce he was sending a second aircraft carrier to the persian gulf and would be supplying patriot anti-missile systems to america’s middle eastern allies. These moves clearly have nothing to do with iraq but are explicitly aimed at iran. "On January 15, the day before the "GCC plus two" communiqué, US Defence Secretary Robert Gates gave a news conference at NATO headquarters in Brussels, Belgium. He described the beefing up of America’s Middle East forces as reaffirming "our determination to be a strong presence in that area for a long time into the future." (Jean Shaoul and Chris Marsden ‘Rice’s Middle East tour: Arab regimes back US war drive in Iraq and Iran’ http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/jan2007/rice-j19.shtml January 19, 2007); "The Middle East isn't a region to be dominated by Iran. The Gulf isn't a body of water to be controlled by Iran. That's why we've seen the United States station two carrier battle groups in the region," Burns said in an address to the Dubai-based Gulf Research Center, an influential think-tank." (Jim Krane ‘U.S. warns Iran to back down’ http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/news/world/16525948.htm January 23, 2007). In his speeches bush dramatically increased the tempo of his anti-iranian propaganda in a way that is all too reminiscent of the build up to the invasion of iraq. "In sum, the Bush Administration seems to have concluded that Iran is guilty until proven innocent and continues to maintain that the Persian Gulf belongs to Americans – not to Persians – setting the stage for a potential military strike." (Larisa Alexandrovna and Muriel Kane ‘Escalation of US Iran military planning part of six-year Administration push’ http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Iran_The_Road_to_Confrontation_0123.html January 23, 2007).
The Neocons’ getting Realists to Implement their Strategy.
The irony of the current situation is that bush seems to be implementing the latest stage of his likudnik strategy with those reputed to be realists who supposedly abhor this strategy. He replaced a jew-ish neocon, donald rumsveld, with a so-called realist. Robert gates who was given the job of implementing a new military strategy in iraq which is even more to the neocons’ satisfaction than the one that had been pursued by rumsveld. Juan cole suggested that bush replaced other key figures with realists but, as has since become apparent, all of them are now devoting themselves to the implementation of bush’s grandiose likudnik strategy. "I'm stricken with a case of the "what ifs" and "if onlys"! What if Gates had been at the Pentagon in 2003 and Petraeus had been in charge of the US military in Iraq and Crocker had been there instead of Paul Bremer? These are competent professionals who know what they are doing. Gates is clear-sighted enough to tell Congress that the US is not winning in Iraq, unlike his smooth-talking, arrogant and flighty predecessor. Petraeus is among the real experts on counter-insurgency, and did a fine job of making friends and mending fences when he was in charge of Mosul. Crocker has been ambassador to Kuwait, Syria, Lebanon and Pakistan, and knows the region intimately (as does Khalilzad). Bremer had been ambassador to . . . Holland. Despite all the talk of the resurgence of the Neoconservatives with their "surge" (actually ramped up occupation) plan, this team is the farthest from Neoconservative desires that you could possibly get." (Juan Cole ‘The Adults take Charge’ http://www.juancole.com/2007_01_01_juanricole_archive.html January 05, 2007).
A Repeat of Tactics used in the Lead up to the Invasion of Iraq.
In his effort to push america into an attack on iran, bush has been regurgitating the tactics that were employed so successfully in previous attacks on iraq. First of all there are the outright lies about iran’s non-existent wmd to win over what seems to be a population suffering from attention deficit disorder and permanent gullibility. Secondly, whereas the bush regime had been blaming al qaeda for the attacks on the american military in iraq, (fabricated) evidence has suddenly emerged that iran is responsible for the attacks. "The Bush regime suddenly changed its line and now blames Iran instead of al-Qaeda for its defeat in Iraq." (Paul Craig Roberts ‘The Crime of the Century’ http://www.antiwar.com/roberts/?articleid=10432 January 31, 2007). Then the bush regime manipulates and pressures countries into supporting un sanctions against iran to cripple the country in the same way sanctions crippled iraq in the 1990s. Finally, bush is assembling allies to militarily attack iran just like his father assembled the ‘coalition of the willing’ to remove the iraqi military from kuwait during the first gulf war. Naval forces from britain, france, and the gulf state countries, are helping the american navy to enforce un sanctions against iran. Bush’s likudnik regime may once again be spreading almost the same blatant lies and fabrications as it did against saddam prior to the invasion of iraq but this doesn’t make such tactics any the less effective in winning support amongst the american public, and the international community, for the isolation of iran. Bush is deftly putting the pieces of the jigsaw together and the picture is not a happy one for iran.
Diplomatic Successes – Domestic Difficulties.
Whether bush will have enough political support in congress or the country as a whole to sustain the implementation of his neocon policies for the rest of his term in office is difficult to say but this is unlikely to affect his determination to implement such catastrophic likudnik fantasies. America’s ruling jewish elite wants more wars in the middle east – especially because it’s only american lives, treasure, and reputation, that are being sacrificed. And bush desperately wants to achieve that elusive victory to show the world he is not a serial loser, that his political life has not been the same succession of failures as his private life. What is striking is that his considerable diplomatic successes on the international front for the isolation of iran stand in stark contrast to his failures on the domestic front to win public approval for an attack on iran. This is a complete reversal of the situation when he first became president and had considerable domestic support amidst considerable international apprehension.
Bush’s Predicament being Mirrored around the World.
Although opinion polls in america have suggested the bush regime has succeeded in winning some support for an american attack on iran, even majority support spasmodically, the november mid-term elections showed there is no serious majority for this policy. Bush’s continual promotion of extreme likudnik policies seems to be increasingly alienating public opinion. He refuses to adopt policies he knows would be popular and defiantly promotes policies he knows are unpopular. Dick cheney has also made clear his disdain for the views of the american electorate. "Asked about a US Senate resolution disapproving of the "surge" of US troops to Iraq, Vice President Cheney said, "It won't stop us."" (John Pilger ‘Iran: A War Is Coming’ http://www.antiwar.com/pilger/?articleid=10452 February 3, 2007). Bush tramples over public, and increasingly congressional, opinions because he believes his likudnik policies will enable him to reverse his military failures in iraq with a military victory over iran. By persuading or pressurizing other governments around the world into supporting his likudnik policies, bush is also forcing these governments to treat their electorates with contempt. Bush’s devotion to the likudnik strategy and his disdain for the majority of americans who oppose this strategy, is spreading like a contagious disease to other governments around the world.
Tony blair finds himself in virtually the same political predicament as george bush. His promotion of fundamentalist likudnik policies has alienated substantial sections of the british public despite the jewish dominated media’s incessant propaganda hyping up the critical importance of the war in iraq and a war against iran. Since his term in office is rapidly coming to an end, he is using this freedom to spend more time and effort on pushing the likudnik agenda. The fact that his popularity ratings are plummeting does nothing to dissuade him from promoting this strategy. On the contrary, it just seems to provoke him into becoming even more of a warmonger making even more extremist pronouncements. The labour government and the labour party is suffering from the backwash from blair’s racist rantings and yet blair doesn’t seem in the least bit bothered that he seems to be singlehandedly ruining the election prospects of his government and his party. Blair seems insistent on sacrificing to the cause of jewish supremacism in the middle east not only his party, but his government, and his country. But then again britain’s jewish lobby has paid for blair’s jewish policies so he’s just delivering what he’s been paid to do.
The divorce between pro-likudnik rulers and anti-likudnik subjects is reaching critical levels in saudi arabia and other sunni arab despotic states. A clear majority of sunni moslems detest the jos’s racist persecution of palestinians and the jewish theft of palestinian land. They are revolted by their rulers servility towards the jos. They are even more appalled at the idea of their rulers encouraging a jewish or judaeo-american attack on another islamic country just because it happens to be governed by shia moslems. Over the summer 2006, the vast majority of sunnis in the greater middle east supported hezbollah’s heroic resistance against the jos’s appalling attack on lebanese civilians – a repeat of the decimation these jewish nazis have inflicted on palestinians. Despite the fact that they are shias, the two most popular leaders in the sunni world are hassan nasrallah and mahmoud ahmadinejad. "Compare it with the fact that Nasrallah, Khalid Meshal from Hamas and Ahmadinejad are the three most popular Muslim leaders among the Egyptian masses." (Pepe Escobar ‘The 'axis of fear' is born’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IB02Ak01.html February 02, 2007). The shia members of sunni dominated communities are even more alienated by their sunni rulers’ likudnik policies. Just how long sunni arab despots can go on defying and antagonizing their subjects is not known but their decreasing popular support makes them highly vulnerable. It is sunni arab despots who are deliberately fanning the flames of a religious war in the middle east whilst their subjects live in peace with each other.
In pakistan, general musharraf faces similar political problems. Pakistan is far more democratic than sunni arab states but the level of violence between rulers and ruled is much greater. The more that musharraf implements america’s likudnik policies, the more likely he is to trigger revolts amongst the country’s islamic political parties and religiously minded populace. The challenges to his rule could put not merely his survival in office at risk but his physical survival.
The turkish government faces similar structural problems as pakistan. Turkey is a democratic moslem society ruled by moslem politicians. But the turkish military is a lot more secular and much more sympathetic to the jos and to america. Most turkish people were vehemently opposed to any governmental participation in the american invasion of iraq. Only the secular turkish military supported the invasion. The more pressure the bush regime applies to the turkish government to support an attack on iran, the more it will undermine the turkish government and the more likely it is to cause civil conflicts. This conflict could end up destroying the country’s democratic institutions thereby bringing about the return to power of the turkish military.
In lebanon, the sunni dominated, fuad siniora government is funded by the saudis and the americans. Siniora’s semi-democratic, lebanese government is as divorced from a substantial segment of its electorate as any sunni dictator. It did not dare to publicly support the jos’s attacks on the shia section of lebanese society over the summer 2006 even though it conspired with the jos’s warmongering to eradicate hezbollah. It doesn’t dare to express its support for an american attack on iran because it knows this would further alienate the shias and possibly induce hezbollah to become involved in any iranian retaliation. Since december 2006, the siniora government has dismissed as irrelevant two enormous demonstrations organized by hezbollah and their christian and sunni allies. Both demonstrations were much bigger than those that toppled the previous government and led to the election of the march14 coalition government. And yet siniora not merely refused to accede to such huge displays of opposition, it refuses to negotiate or compromise with the opposition. The siniora government, its resolve stiffened by america, the jos, and saudi arabia, is bunkered into power and treats the interests and rights of a majority of lebanese society with contempt. There is little doubt that the lebanese constitution needs to be reformed to give the shiites political power proportionate to their demographic size and that new elections would result in a significant shift of power towards the opposition parties but the rump sinioran government sticks defiantly to the status quo.
In britain and america there have always been examples of governments implementing unpopular policies so there is still plenty of leeway before public alienation starts spilling over into more serious expressions of opposition. But such a leeway in many other countries in the greater middle east is much less generous.
The bush disease of total loyalty to the likudnik cause coupled with utter disdain for american interests and american public opinion, has spread contagiously to european governments, sunni arab dictatorships, pakistan, and perhaps even turkey. Bush started off by refusing to negotiate or listen to his enemies such as the taliban in afghanistan, iran, and syria, even though they wanted peace with america. Now his commitment to the likudnik cause has reached such heights of self righteousness he refuses to listen to a majority of american public opinion. Tony blair in britain acts as if he was a jewish ambassador to a foreign country and treats his own people and his own country with the same contempt that siniora treats the lebanese people. The reason so many governments seem to be drifting away from any concern with the views and interests of their own people is because they are much more concerned with implementing the policies of their domestic jewish lobbies and bush’s likudnik policies. Around the world, governments forced by internal and external pressures into adopting likudnik policies, are increasingly alienating their own people/electorates.
The Farce of the Likudniks’ Pro-Democracy Propaganda.
The bush regime did not invade iraq because it wanted to establish democracy in that country. It had been obsessed with invading iraq even before the pentagon and new york bombings provided it with the excuse for an invasion. Its initial plan had been no more ambitious than swopping ahmad chalabi for saddam hussein whilst leaving virtually everything else in place. It was only after the failure of this policy, and the consequent insistence of iraq’s leading religious authority on democratic elections, that the likudnik dominated bush regime started talking grandiosely about their mission to bring democracy to the middle east. Hoisted by their own petard they supported elections in iraq, egypt, and palestine, which led to convincing victories by radical islamic parties that opposed the jos and its american strategic ally. The bush regime quickly dropped the implementation of its democratic principles even though it continued to present itself as being intent on establishing democracies in all countries around the world.
Condoleezza rice tries to win diplomatic support for her likudnik policies by occasionally indulging in fantasies of democratizing the middle east and protecting middle eastern democracies from being undermined by anti-democratic islamic forces. "As Rice explained in her testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on January 11, "This is a different Middle East. This Middle East is a Middle East in which there really is a new alignment of forces. On one side are reformers and responsible leaders, who seek to advance their interests peacefully, politically and diplomatically. On the other side are extremists of every sect and ethnicity who use violence to spread chaos, undermine democratic governance, and to impose an agenda of hatred and intolerance. On one side of that divide are the Gulf countries, including Saudi Arabia and the other countries of the Gulf, Egypt, Jordan, the young democracies of Lebanon, the Palestinian territories led by Mahmoud Abbas, and Iraq. On the other side of that divide are Iran, Syria, Hezbollah and Hamas. I think we have to understand that that is the fundamental divide."" (Jean Shaoul and Chris Marsden ‘Rice’s Middle East tour: Arab regimes back US war drive in Iraq and Iran’ http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/jan2007/rice-j19.shtml January 19, 2007).
Rice’s "fundamental divide" is illusory. On the positive side she places, saudi arabia (monarchy, sunni); egypt (dictatorship, sunni); kuwait, qatar, bahrain, the united arab emirates, and oman (monarchies, sunni); president siniora (opposed to full scale democratic reforms, sunni); president abbas (democratically elected, sunni); iraq; and afghanistan. Issandr el amrani suggests a new acronym for america’s sunni despots. "Since September 2006, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Vice President Dick Cheney and other senior administration officials have made trips to the Middle East to rally the support of what Rice has described as the "moderate mainstream" Arab states against Iran. This group has now been formalized as the "GCC + 2," meaning the six members of the Gulf Cooperation Council as well as Egypt and Jordan. I suggest that this new coalition be renamed to something less technocratic: the Sunni Arab-Dominated Dictatorships Against the Mullahs, or SADDAM." (Issandr El Amrani ‘The New Saddam’ http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2007/01/25/the_new_saddam.php January 25, 2007). The negative side she places iran (a substantial democracy, shiite); hezbollah (a democratic political party demanding full democratic reforms in lebanon, shiite); and hamas, (democratically elected, sunni). The real divide is between sunni despots and the vast majority of moslems who live in peace with each other and who want greater democracy.
It is true that the bush regime has helped to foster democratic reforms in palestine, lebanon, afghanistan, and iraq. In themselves, these achievements would be worthy of celebration but this does not tell the whole story because bush has also undermined democracy in palestine (allowing the jos to destroy hamas); lebanon (allowing the jos to attack lebanon and refusing to support full-scale democratic reforms); and afghanistan and iraq (refusing to allow these countries to enjoy democratic sovereignty). The increasingly dictatorial bush regime has ruthlessly undermined the most democratic elements found in the middle east i.e. iran, hezbollah, and hamas, because he doesn’t like their democratic policies.
Bush’s policies in the middle east have nothing to do with democratization. They are intent on boosting jewish supremacism even if this means destroying any trace of democracy in the region. In order for bush to win the support of SADDAM governments for his likudnik strategy he’s had to drop demands for an increase in democracy in those countries. "The new SADDAM is much more collaborative (and less mercurial) than the old Saddam. The aging autocrats and puppet kings that make it up are getting some nice trade-offs for their support, most notably the abandonment of the Bush administration’s last policy du jour, the "Forward Strategy for Freedom." You may remember another Bush speech - delivered at his inauguration in 2005 - in which he said: "All who live in tyranny and hopelessness can know: The United States will not ignore your oppression, or excuse your oppressors. When you stand for your liberty, we will stand with you." Well, with the new SADDAM policy, you get something more along the lines of "I know we previously encouraged you to stand for liberty and all that, but if you live in tyranny and hopelessness we will ignore your oppression and excuse your oppressors. When you stand for liberty, we will look the other way." (Issandr El Amrani ‘The New Saddam’ http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2007/01/25/the_new_saddam.php January 25, 2007).
Stirring up divisions between Sunnis and Shias.
For bush to succeed in promoting the grand likudnik strategy he needs to ‘divide and rule’ i.e. stir up conflict between sunnis and shias. "The new anti-Iranian alliance with SADDAM appears to be deliberately reviving an old divide in the Islamic world between Sunni and Shia Muslims." (Issandr El Amrani ‘The New Saddam’ http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2007/01/25/the_new_saddam.php January 25, 2007).
The rulers in america, britain, the jos, sunni arab dictatorships, egypt, jordan, pakistan, lebanon, and turkey, are endeavoring to close the increasing gap between themselves and those they rule by boosting the volume of their pro-likudnik, anti-shia, propaganda. Whether this will persuade the arab masses to abandon their admiration for shia leaders and their opposition to a war against iran or, on the contrary, will further alienate even more people against their rulers has yet to become evident. "To convince their populations, which are generally aghast at U.S. policy in Iraq and Palestine, that Iran is the real enemy (although, unlike say Israel, it has never in modern history been the first to attack an Arab country or threatened to use nuclear weapons against them), the SADDAM regimes are engaging in anti-Shia hate-mongering. State-backed clerics and journalists are recuperating the poisonous anti-Shia language typically heard from Iraqi jihadists to lure public support away from Iran and its allies (notably Hezbollah and Hamas, which are widely admired for their resistance to Israel occupation and aggression) and prepare the ground for a confrontation with Tehran." (Issandr El Amrani ‘The New Saddam’ http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2007/01/25/the_new_saddam.php January 25, 2007).
The Likudniks at the Forefront of Global Terrorism.
Despite the bush regime’s assertions that al quaeda is the world’s leading terrorist organization, in reality this title is held by the likudniks in his regime. Firstly, the neocons make no effort to condemn sunni arab states for allowing people to fund and arm those in iraq who are killing american soldiers. Ordinary americans would be incensed that their troops are being killed by sunnis financed by wealthy individuals within sunni states but this doesn’t bother the likudniks since this slaughter is helping to bring about chaos in a country which once posed a military threat to the jos. The likudniks want chaos and instability in iraq so that it will never be able to recover and, once again, pose a military threat to the jos.
Secondly, the neocons have developed a close political alignment with iranian terrorists. "The big briefing planned by the Bush administration on supposed Iranian weapons shipments to Iraq had to be postponed because the presentation was judged exaggerated and unsubstantiated by Secretary of State Condi Rice and by Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates. So that raises the question of who was spearheading this presentation inside the Bush administration? Getting Iran is an obsession of the Neoconservatives at the American Enterprise Institute and their plants inside the administration, such as Iran-Contra felon Elliot Abrams in the National Security Council and David Wurmser and John Hannah on Cheney's rump Veep national security council. Many Neoconservatives and other sorts of wingnut have a secret alliance with the Marxist Islamist MEK terrorist organization, which feeds them allegations about Iran in Iraq just as Ahmad Chalabi used to with regard to the Baath regime in Iraq." (Juan Cole ‘Realists in US Tone Down Iran Accusations’ http://www.juancole.com/2007_02_01_juanricole_archive.html February 03, 2007).
Thirdly, the bush regime in afghanistan has recently offered an amnesty for all those in the taliban, including mullah omar, who have been involved in guerilla conflicts over the past 25 years, including those who have killed american soldiers. Fourthly, the likudniks in the bush regime are allowing kurdish terrorists to practice and operate in iraq, "the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), condemned as a terrorist organization by the U.S. and its NATO ally, Turkey." In 2004, the PKK set up "the Party for a Free Life in Kurdistan, or PEJAK, to fight for Kurdish autonomy in Iran. The PKK and its affiliates are spread through a region of some 35 million Kurds that straddles Turkey, Iraq, Iran and Syria. PEJAK, the newest group, claims to number thousands of recruits, and targets only Iran — a mission which has made PEJAK the subject of intense speculation that it is being used to undermine the radical Islamic regime of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad." (Kathy Gannon ‘In Iraq, Kurds train to battle Iran’ http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070202/ap_on_re_mi_ea/kurds_vs__iran February 02, 2007). The jos is the kurds’ biggest supporter. It supports an independent kurdish state brought about if necessary by violence against iran, syria and iraq.
Diplomatic Successes Breed a Geostrategic Catastrophe.
It is paradoxical indeed that bush has often been condemned for three major disasters and yet even when he achieves a string of major diplomatic successes all that this does is to lure him into implementing, even more recklessly, the rest of the likudnik agenda which could create an even greater catastrophe. The devastation of the middle east could be a geostrategic catastrophe for america. Bush’s likudnik-induced confrontation with iran could waste american lives and treasure to such an extent it could become a geostrategic catastrophe for america. It could damage the region’s fossil fuel industry to such an extent it might leave russia as the world’s fossil fuel goliath. Its sole achievement would be enhancing jewish supremacism - increasing the jos’s regional dominance. In america, jewish dominated universities, jewish dominated think tanks, the jewish dominated media, the jewish dominated political parties, the jewish dominated congress, the jewish lobby, and the jews in the bush regime, are conspiring to use the american military to benefit the jos at catastrophic expense for america. This is a conspiracy. It surely cannot be a mere coincidence that all of america’s likudnik dominated institutions are advocating policies that would benefit the jos whilst inflicting a disastrous collapse on american interests.
What would the New Middle East look Like?
Bush, blair, and olmert, are launching a global propaganda offensive against iran because of their fantasies about its non-existent nuclear weapons. Many commentators allege this likudnik triumvirate is using the issue to do something constructive - bring about regime change to foster democracy. But the triumvirate knows there is widespread popular support for the development of nuclear power and the acquisition of nuclear weapons so democratizing iran will boost both objectives. The idea of regime change in iran leading to greater democracy is a likudnik political bluff. What the triumvirate wants is help from autocratic sunni despots to oppress the shias in iran, iraq, and lebanon, and prevent them from establishing democracies. These highly unpopular, even despised, likudnik leaders are preparing to decimate iran as they have already decimated palestine, iraq, and lebanon. Likudnik extremists have outlined their desire to devastate iran and then do the same to all states in the greater middle east, including their despotic sunni allies. Iraq was not the end of america’s proxy zionist wars in the middle east and iran will not be their end. In america, jewish dominated universities, jewish dominated think tanks, the jewish dominated media, the jewish dominated political parties, the jewish dominated congress, the jewish lobby, and the jews in the bush regime will turn their poisonous, racist propaganda against saudi arab, egypt, and pakistan. This will entail further decades of conflict, barbarism, chaos, and impoverization. The ultimate objective of the current likudnik triumvirate, and the one which succeeds it, is jewish supremacism in the middle east.
The idea that all of these wars, and the chaos, and instability they bring, is for the benefit of america’s gigantic, multi-national, oil companies is absurd. These companies know they will never be able to extract fossil fuels from a middle east in turmoil. These oil companies have been defeated politically by the country’s jewish ruling elite and their only prospects for the future will be to find tiny islands of stability in the middle east and extract whatever tiny quantities of oil they can find. America’s gigantic multinational oil companies are just beggars at the table of their rich jewish masters. It has to be wondered whether left wingers, ideologically fixated on explaining american foreign policies solely in terms of the country’s oil interests, will realize the bankruptcy of their analysis before or after the bankruptcy of america’s oil companies.
The question that needs to be asked about bush’s likudnik policies is whether there is going to be anyone left in iraq after america’s hi-tech terrorists have finished torturing innocent iraqi civilians, wrecking every building in the country in search for previously non-existent enemies, and murdering anyone suspected of being in the vicinity of the enemy. Bush’s new neocon plan for a surge of troops to iraq entails the adoption of new tactics such as american troops kicking down the front doors of every home in baghdad. The calling cards that american troops leave behind them after smashing their way in to people’s homes is to blow a hole through one of the walls. Prior to the surge has started, the devastation in iraq is as follows. "Since 1991, according to Handicap International, the United States and Britain have dropped over 13 million cluster munitions on Iraq and strewn the countryside with more than 500 tons of toxic depleted uranium ammunition. A Johns Hopkins University study found that anywhere from 426,369 to 793,663 Iraqis have been killed since the March 2003 invasion. The war has also driven 1.8 million Iraqis out of their country and created 1.6 million internal refugees." (Conn Hallinan ‘"What We Did Was Insane ... Let's Try It Again": The Vishnu Strategy’ http://www.counterpunch.org/hallinan02032007.html February 3/4, 2007). Given the carnage the american military has already inflicted on iraq, bush’s psychotic focus on winning a military victory might compel him to pursue victory to the very end - even if it means nobody would be left to enjoy the fruits of his great victory. Bush seems to display no moral constraints to his ambition of winning a military victory in iraq. The deaths of millions of people and the emigration of millions more, seem immaterial to him. It has to be wondered just how much of a monster he is.
And just how many people are going to survive in the middle east after america, the jos, europe, and sunni arab despots, attack iran (and perhaps syria and lebanon) in the middle of the world’s greatest concentration of oil facilities and oil pipelines? "Among the consequences of Bush's monstrous war crime are the deaths of tens or hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians, the destruction of Iraqi civilian infrastructure, the outbreak of civil war between Iraqi Sunnis and Shi'ites, the spreading of this sectarian conflict throughout the Middle East, and the consequent destabilization of the region." (Paul Craig Roberts ‘The Crime of the Century’ http://www.antiwar.com/roberts/?articleid=10432 January 31, 2007). By the time these freedom loving, state-terrorists have finished, there might be few bipeds left in the middle east. Quite how a herd of bulls is going to protect the china shop of middle eastern oil is beyond reason.
The result of a war in the middle east would leave russia laughing all the way to the bank. If bush was worried about american dependency on middle eastern oil it has to be suspected that, after the start of a war in the middle east, he’ll have even more to worry about when america finds itself with an even greater reliance on russian fossil fuels. His anxieties will probably be even more acute considering that china would want these resources just as much as america and has nearly a billion petro-dollars to pay for them. Has bush been so severely indoctrinated into the jewish cause that he is willing to sacrifice his country’s own interests for the sake of the regional dominance of the racist jos and, even worse, would sacrifice america’s hyper-power status to the russian fossil fuel goliath? Is bush willing to sacrifice not merely american lives and treasure in a middle eastern war but america’s position as the world’s hyper power for the sake of jewish supremacism in the middle east?
Since the mid 1970s virtually no country around the world has been in the slightest bit bothered by iran’s stuttering efforts to acquire civil nuclear power. The only country that regarded it as a threat was the jos and immediately after america’s proxy zionist invasion of iraq, jewish lobbying organizations around the world began a campaign to persuade the world that iran was a danger to the whole world. The fact that in a mere four years, the global jewish lobby has been able to shift the political views of virtually all governments around the world to such a huge extent, even though many of these countries have substantial material interests in trade and investments with iran, is testimony to its phenomenal global power. The jos is by far and away the biggest threat to peace and stability around the world.
posted by The Mundi Club at 9:41 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home