Cash for Honours? It’s Jewish Cash for Jewish Policies!

Introduction.
The jewish dominated british media constantly uses the phrase 'cash for honours' when discussing the year long police investigation into corruption in the british political system. However, it is not an accurate reflection of the political issue at stake. It’s a euphemism to cover up the reality that wealthy jewish donors have been providing huge sums of money to enable the labour party to win general elections so that labour governments can implement policies favourable not merely to the jewish community in britain but, primarily, to the jews-only state in palestine (jos). In other words, a more accurate description of this political corruption is 'jewish cash for jewish policies'.

Blair's slavish support for george bush's likudnik policies (e.g. the invasions of afghanistan and iraq), and his equally slavish acceptance of the jos's policies (e.g. military onslaughts against innocent palestinian and lebanese civilians), have been financed by jewish bribes. This is also the source of his support for the forthcoming invasion of iran rather than any consideration of the country’s national interests. The british labour party/governments have basically been bought by wealthy jewish likudniks. If it wasn't for their donations the british labour party would be financially bankrupt. In america, the jewish lobby provides the democratic party with 60% of its funds (so that in return it supports extreme likudnik policies). The ratio for the labour party in britain could be even higher.

Levy’s Background.
According to red star research, "He (levy) set up Magnet Records in 1972 with help from Maurice Oberstein, Head of CBS Records, and made millions from artists like Alvin Stardust, Chris Rea, Dollar, Darts and Bad Manners, at one point was selling 8% of all records in the UK. He sold Magnet to Warner Brothers in 1988 for £10 million and later set up another record company called M&G (named after himself and his wife Gilda), where he paid himself a salary of £308,657. He sold M&G in 1997. He runs a private company called Wireart, an investment company which was based in an oversea tax haven until 1997. Wireart paid him £160,000 (plus £50,000 expenses) for work as a management consultant in 1998-9 at the time he wasn't working. Since 1992 he has been Chairman of Jewish Care, one of the UK's biggest charities (he was asked to join by the Tory minister Lord Young), raising as much as £60 million." (Red Star Research http://www.red-star-research.org.uk/subframe1.html).

Levy’s time is spent between his homes in britain and the jos. According to john kampfner, levy "spends several months a year at his house in tel aviv ..." (John Kampfner New Statesman 15.4.2002 p.10-11). He has close relationships with politicians in both countries. "He also owns a villa in Herzliya Pituah, an exclusive suburb of Tel Aviv in Israel, which he bought after selling another villa nearby for #4 million. He has acted as a fundraiser for Ehud Barak, the Israeli Prime Minister, and maintains a close relationship with him. His son Daniel worked for the Israeli Justice Minister Yossi Beilin, to whom Levy contributed campaign funds. Both his children live in Israel." (Red Star Research http://www.red-star-research.org.uk/subframe1.html). Levy’s life and political influence in britain are almost duplicated by his life and influence in the jos. It is not known whether he is a dual passport holder.

Blair and Levy.
"Lord Levy .. met Blair at a dinner party in 1994 held by Gideon Meir, a senior Israeli diplomat, and became his tennis partner. Levy was in charge of donations to the 'private trust' which funded Tony Blair's office before the 1997 election (which reached £7 million), and is now the chief fundraiser for the 'high value' donors account at the Labour Party, along with his deputy Amanda Delew (who worked with him at Jewish Care). He is reported to have raised £12 million for the 'high value' fund before the 1997 election, becoming known as 'Mr Cashpoint'. Straight after the election he was given a peerage. He used to work with Dr Henry Drucker, whose company Oxford Philanthropic was brought in by the Labour Party to advise on gaining large corporate donations, but they fell out over Drucker's description of Labour's 'blind trust' funds as 'evil' (the trusts have since all been closed down)." (Red Star Research http://www.red-star-research.org.uk/subframe1.html).

Levy played a critical role in financing blair’s campaign to become leader of the labour party and then blair’s new labour campaigns to win national elections. "Levy was the man who made Tony Blair the Prime Minister of England. He found youthful Tony, managed his election campaign and brought him to power. (Levy learned a lot from Bronfman, who was instrumental in bringing Clinton to the White House)." (foppe37 http://www.itszone.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=17734 c.2004).

Levy’s connection with bronfman is interesting in that it raises the spectre of two jews who helped to elect three politicians in three countries – clinton, blair, and barak – all of whom have stoutly defended, and promoted, jewish racism.

Blair’s Suppression of Palestinian Sympathies within the Labour Party.
So what did levy get in return for his efforts in grooming and financing blair to become leader of the labour party? There is, of course, no evidence of any quid pro quo but one of the first things blair did after he became leader was to make it transparent that if party members wanted a career within his party, and possibly in any future government, then they would have to suppress their sympathies for the palestinian cause. John kampfner provided an account of the way that blair, and other new labour leaders, made pro-semitic bigotry a critical component of new labour’s agenda. ""To define yourself as new labour, you had to prove your credentials as pro-business, anti-tax, and pro-israel," says one party official. "Palestinian sympathies were the preserve of the old left and we quite simply had to get rid of ours if we wanted to get on." At Blair’s first party conference as leader, labour friends of israel assembled in a huge turnout for its main meeting of the week. Every aspiring young apparatchik felt the need to attend. They did then. They still do. The realignment of policy has infuriated older hands in the foreign office. It is not, the mandarins say, based on a detailed knowledge of the conflict, but is a hostage to the broader rebranding exercise that characterizes new labour."" (John Kampfner New Statesman 15.4.2002 p.10-11). Almost at a stroke thousands, possibly tens of thousands, of politically active, idealistic young people looking for a career in the labour party/government, were compelled to suppress their compassion and concern for justice and become pro-semitic bigots in order to gain advancement in the party. These individuals could no longer afford to carefully weigh up the evidence about events in the middle east in order to reach an informed decision - they had to speak the mendacious language of jewish racist bigotry.

Blair pays Homage to his Jewish Masters.
After becoming leader of the labour party, blair won increasing public support for his attacks on corruption in the tory government. In the run up to the 1997 general election public opinion polls indicated that blair would win a landslide victory but blair persisted in trying to win more support, even from traditional labour enemies particularly rupert murdoch’s sun newspaper, even though it was no longer electorally necessary. He embarked on a trip around the world to visit murdoch in an effort to win him over to the new labour cause. "However, an article in The Guardian on 1 July by Lance Price, former media advisor to the British prime minister, brought the topic back to mind. Price asserted that media tycoon Rupert Murdoch was arguably the most powerful man in the media world today. Murdoch, an Australian-born US citizen, literally owns a significant share in public opinion through his control of the world's largest media conglomerates. "I have never met Mr Murdoch, but at times when I worked at Downing Street he seemed like the 24th member of the cabinet. His voice was rarely heard [but, then, the same could have been said of many of the other 23] but his presence was always felt," Price wrote. Murdoch "attended many crisis meetings at the Home Office - the influence of the Murdoch press on immigration and asylum policy would make a fascinating PhD thesis," the author of the best-selling The Spin Doctor's Diary added. "There is no small irony in the fact that Tony Blair flew halfway round the world to address Mr Murdoch and his News International executives in the first year of his leadership of the Labour Party and that he's doing so again next month [July, 2006] in what may prove to be his last." Shocking as they may seem, the revelations of Price, a man once intimately involved in the workings of the British government, appear utterly consistent with the strengthening bond between the mainstream media and governments in Western democracies. Such a bond is equally, but especially visible in the United States. But the relationship between states and media become even the more dangerous when both team up - and not by accident - on the same ideological turf. Murdoch is a right-wing, pro-Israeli (widely known to be a personal friend of Ariel Sharon), pro-war ideologue. In 2003, every editorial page of his raft of 175 newspapers around the world touted the same pro-war mantras." (Ramzy Baroud ‘Murdoch Almighty’ http://www.counterpunch.org/baroud09182006.html September 18, 2006).

Jewish Cash for Levy’s Ennoblement.
After blair won the 1997 general election he started repaying his debts to his jewish funders. He rewarded levy, his chief fundraiser, by ennobling him into the lords. This could be seen as an example of cash for honours – although blair would obviously argue that levy deserved to be appointed to the lords because of his political skills and experience (sic).

But this was far from being the end of the rewards that blair bestowed upon levy. If all that blair did was to ennoble his chief fundraiser then this form of political corruption could legitimately be called 'cash for honours’. But blair also appointed levy as his own personal envoy in foreign affairs. "His role as unofficial envoy for the Middle East took him to 8 different countries in 1999, staying in British Embassies, including Syria, Jordan, Oman, Qatar, Israel, Egypt and Lebanon (where he was accused by the Lebanese Government of bringing them the Israeli position and the British Ambassador had to issue a statement to try and calm the situation down). He was also provided with cars, drivers and staff support. The Embassy in Amman, Jordan, arranged a lunch for him to meet Jordanian politicians." (Red Star Research http://www.red-star-research.org.uk/subframe1.html).

When he became prime minister, blair appointed robin cook as foreign secretary. Cook endeavoured to formulate an ethical foreign policy based around human rights but this immediately put him on a collision course with levy. Cook refused to give levy a room within the foreign and commonwealth office which would have opened up direct and immediate access to civil servants and the policy formulation process. He was able to limit levy’s influence over the labour government’s foreign policies. But, equally, blair’s and levy’s pro-semitic bigotry placed limits on the universal applicability of cook’s human rights policy. "Blair made Levy is special envoy to the Middle East, but the Foreign Secretary, Robin Cook, blocked Levy's attempts to re-Zionize British policy. He even refused to give the freshly knighted Michael Levy a room with a secretary in the Foreign Office. It was short-sighted of Cook, who had annoyed Israelis on previous occasions as well. After Blair's re-election, Cook got the boot, and Levy was elevated." (foppe37 http://www.itszone.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=17734 c.2004).

It is arguable that blair appointed levy as his personal envoy because he wanted to conduct his own foreign policies in the middle east fearing the damage that could be caused by his foreign secretary and the bureaucrats in the fco. Basically all he was doing was using a trusted friend, albeit an unelected official, to curb the power of a political rival he did not trust and whose views he did not support. But it is also equally true that, in effect, blair was allowing his chief fundraiser the chance to influence the country’s foreign policies at the expense of the foreign secretary who had played his democratic part in labour’s election victory. This form of political corruption goes far beyond the relatively insignificant issue of ‘cash for honours’. Giving a jewish donor the chance to influence the country’s foreign policy is plainly an example of ‘jewish cash for jewish policies’. "The role of this new labour fundraiser in chief, well paid consultant to retail chains and the prime minister’s tennis partner, who spends several months a year at his house in tel aviv, is crucial in understanding tony blair’s beneficent approach to israel." (John Kampfner New Statesman 15.4.2002 p.10-11). In other words, even if it is true that blair ennobled levy because of the cash he funneled into the labour party, this is a minor political misdemeanour in comparison to giving financial donors political positions to influence of the policies of a democratically elected government. The seriousness of this form of political corruption, ‘jewish cash for jewish policies’ can be appreciated by the disasters that have resulted from blair’s pursuit of likudnik foreign policies – the carnage in afghanistan, palestine, iraq, and possibly even iran.

Blair replaces Cook with Straw.
After blair won his second general election he replaced cook as foreign secretary with jack straw. By this time levy’s influence over britain’s foreign policies, especially those towards the middle east, was substantial enough to entitle him to his own room and secretary in the foreign office. "Lord levy has a room at the foreign and commonwealth office. It is down the corridor from the head of the middle east and north africa command. The location is no coincidence. He has been put there as a counterweight to what some in downing street regard as the ‘arabist tendency’ in the fco." (John Kampfner New Statesman 15.4.2002 p.10-11). "Enter lord levy .. the one time pop impresario who turned alvin stardust into a household name. A man without ministerial rank, answerable to neither house of parliament, levy is now according to officials, given access to high level intelligence information about the middle east. He has been sent on six "official" missions on behalf of blair to israel and the palestinian authority." (John Kampfner New Statesman 15.4.2002 p.10-11).

As it turned out, jack straw increasingly played second fiddle to levy. This was especially so after his disastrous peace mission to the middle east which required blair to come to his rescue after ariel sharon refused to meet him.

Blair’s response to the P*ny Bombings.
After the september 2001 pentagon and new york bombings, blair attached himself like a limpet to bush’s foreign policies. "This was an attack on the free and democratic world and this is the responsibility of the free and democratic world have got to shoulder with america. It is important americans know their allies stand shoulder to shoulder with them." (Tony Blair Mirror September 14, 2001 p.20-21). In the run up to the bombing of afghanistan, blair played an important role in recognizing that the allies were losing the propaganda war in the moslem world and that to reverse this more needed to be done to solve the conflict in palestine. He went on diplomatic tours of the middle east to win over support for america’s foreign policies. Levy organized blair’s second tour of the middle east. This led one mp to ask about levy’s role in the blair government. "Norman baker mp has been asking the prime minister to explain why the unaccountable lord levy acts as his middle east mr fixit. Tony blair has now responded, saying that since june, lord levy has made several trips "as my personal envoy" to israel, palestine, egypt and jordan, where he met a range of senior figures". Blair adds, "The purpose of those visits was to carry messages on my behalf to other leaders. Lord levy received no remuneration and travels at his own expense." (Mirror 26.10.2001 p.24).

Blair’s Even Handedness over Palestine.
Blair’s jewish funders reaped some considerable political rewards as far as his policies toward palestine were concerned. In the middle of april 2002, after the zionists had spent nearly a fortnight reducing large parts of palestine to rubble, jack straw was interviewed on television where he tried to cover up ariel sharon’s murderous spree, "Both sides are showing intransigence." (Jack Straw Breakfast News BBC1 11.4.2002). This even-handedness between one side which has f16s, helicopter gunships, tanks, and a vast array of weaponry and, the other side which has sticks and stones, calls for a revision of the second world war. According to straw’s logic when the nazis were slaughtering jews it would be right to say that, "Both sides are showing intransigence".

During the early days of the zionists’ april 2002 reoccupation of palestine, blair kept carefully in line with bush’s views. He did not condemn the invasion - as if it was quite normal for the jewish army to invade other countries. He didn’t even say anything when bush, obviously under the influence of the likudnik world view, claimed the invasion was the second phase of the ‘war against terrorism’. A few days later when bush demanded the jewish withdrawal from jenin, blair duly followed the new line. Sharon duly dismissed his jewish funded, piddling little muppets.

Blair’s support for a Palestinian State.
In the autumn of 2001, blair made a major change to britain’s foreign policy principles when he set aside ideas of power sharing in palestine and announced his support for the establishment of a palestinian state. This announcement was made during his meeting with yasser arafat. "A viable Palestinian state, as part of a negotiated and agreed settlement, which guarantees peace and security for Israel is the objective." (Tony Blair quoted in Derek Brown ‘Palestine is not just a state of mind’ Guardian 16.10.2001. "The end we desire is a just peace in which the israelis and palestinians live side by side, each in their own state, secure and able to prosper and develop." (Tony Blair quoted in the Mirror 15.10.2001).

John pilger was not convinced about blair’s commitment to a palestinian state. "The meeting with arafat was no more than a public relations exercise designed to placate the arab world. It served to disguise blair’s support for the zionist project and his role as ariel sharon’s closest ally in europe." (John Pilger New Statesman January 14, 2002 p.17). At the time this criticism seemed overly harsh but, as it turns out, he was right. When sharon launched his policy of persuading the world community to ostracize arafat in order to prevent any further efforts being made towards a peace settlement in palestine, blair offered no resistance and simply followed sharon’s orders. Pilger could see the direction in which blair’s policies were heading from the fact that blair was arming the likudniks to slaughter palestinians. "Shortly after his election in 1997, blair shamelessly appointed a friend, michael levy, a wealthy jewish businessman who had fundraised for new labour, as his "special envoy" in the middle east, having first made him lord levy. Under blair, british support for israeli repression has accelerated. Last year alone, the government approved 91 arms export licenses to israel .. " (John Pilger New Statesman January 14, 2002 p.17).

David triesman, general secretary of the labour party and a british jew, complained about a number of points made in pilger’s article. He was particularly annoyed that pilger suspected lord levy’s commitment to peace in the middle east, "Saeb erakat, the palestinian chief negotiator, said recently: "Lord levy is a friend of mine and his heart is very much in the peace process .. He is in favour of the establishment of a state of Palestine, on a negotiated basis, giving full security to the state of Israel." I never thought I would come to regard it (New Statesman) as anti-semitic. But i do today." (David Triesman New Statesman January 21, 2002 p.36). It was easy for blair and levy to say they supported the creation of a palestinian state to win support amongst arab governments and arab peoples but when they refused to condemn sharon’s preposterous criticisms of arafat, which he made solely to sabotage peace efforts, their commitment was shown to be inconsequential. John kampfner summarized blair’s bigotry in the following way. He .. "remained convinced, throughout the bloodshed of the past 18 months, of two things: that arafat could stop palestinian violence if he wanted to, and that, even under sharon, palestinians could achieve an equitable solution." (John Kampfner New Statesman April 15, 2002 p.10-11).

Whilst touring the middle east allegedly to contribute towards peace in the region, blair had more or less committed himself to supporting bush’s invasion of iraq which would lead not merely to the collapse of any peace efforts in palestine but to the prospects of a regional war.

Blair appoints more Zionist Advisors on the Middle East.
Blair’s jewish funders received even greater political influence over britain’s foreign policies when blair hired more zionist advisors to boost the implementation of his likudnik foreign policies. One of blair’s personal envoys was robert cooper - a prime advocate of condoning jewish racism. "The orthodox casuistry among factotums, columnists and courtiers of the Washington regime is symbolised by Prime Minister Tony Blair's personal assistant for foreign affairs, ex-diplomat Robert Cooper, who writes openly: "We need to get used to the idea of double standards."" (Tariq Ali - Getting used to the idea of double standards’ The Independent, 15.9.2001).

Another of blair’s personal envoys was charles powell aka lord powell of bayswater, a former foreign policy adviser to margaret thatcher. "Blair greeted Powell warmly as he entered his "den" at No 10. "Charles, I hear you have good relations with the Syrians," Blair said. "I'd very much like you to go to Damascus and talk to President [Bashar] Assad for us." Others lay the blame (for the failure of the second middle east tour) on Powell, a surprise choice as an advance emissary, not least given the fact that Blair already has one "special envoy" to the Middle East in Lord Levy. Cabinet sources say the reason Levy was overlooked was simple - he is "too associated with Israel". (David Cracknell ‘The week it all went wobbly for the West’ Sunday Times 4.11.2001).

Adding weight to the jewish domination of blair’s foreign policies was ariel sharon's former advisor, daniel bethlehem. "The British Foreign Office has appointed a controversial Israeli government adviser to one of its most sensitive posts as head of the legal department. Advice from Daniel Bethlehem QC in 2002 to the then Israeli prime minister, Ariel Sharon, led Israel to block a UN inquiry into the battle of Jenin. The Israeli refusal to cooperate was widely condemned at the time by various human rights organisations. Mr Bethlehem, who was Israel's external legal adviser, also took the lead for the Israeli government at the International court of justice in The Hague in 2004 to defend the barrier being built along the West Bank. Israel lost the case." (Ewen MacAskill ‘Israel adviser switches to top FO job’ http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,1725156,00.html March 7, 2006).

Labour’s Zionist Supporters.
It needs to be emphasized that jewish donations alone would not have been enough in themselves to buy changes in blair’s foreign policies. They needed external political support to enable them to produce jewish policies. They needed a jewish owned media to keep quiet about the corruption entailed by the ‘jewish cash for jewish policies’. Just imagine how the jewish dominated media would have gone ballistic about corruption in the labour government if a wealthy palestinian had given blair £30 million to promote palestinians’ human rights. Jewish donations also needed jewish activists within the labour party to help popularize likudnik ideas within the labour party. "Labour Friends of Israel seeks to promote a strong bilateral relationship between Britain and Israel. We work with the Government, Parliamentarians, advisers, and activists throughout the Labour movement. LFI also strengthens the bond between the British and Israeli Labour parties, organising meetings in both countries between senior figures, officials and the grassroots. We are fundamentally sympathetic to Israel’s position as a liberal democracy facing constant security dilemmas and existential threats. But we are not uncritical. Positive engagement with all sections of the Israeli political spectrum is important, as is an effective working relationship with Palestinian representatives. We are friends of both an Israel, secure and at peace with her neighbours, and of a viable and democratic Palestine. (http://www.lfi.org.uk) (‘See, There Is No Israel Lobby’ http://www.mpacuk.org/content/view/2727/34/ September 23 2006). Without these activists, it would have been much more difficult for blair to have promoted likudnik policies. And, finally, jewish money would not have been able to buy jewish policies if it wasn’t for the fact that britain’s radicals have refused to protest about this form of corruption. In turn, this silence allows the jewish dominated media to remain silent about this issue. It allows jewish activists within the labour party to continue promoting jewish racism. One of the main reasons for radicals’ silence is that many of them are jews who, despite their radicalism, are loyal to the jos no matter how awful its racism and barbaric warmongering. The political corruption of ‘Jewish cash for jewish policies’ is possible only in a society which has been indoctrinated into opposing all forms of racism whilst consenting to what is, at present, the most extreme and virulent form of racism around the world, jewish racism.

The Quantities of Jewish Cash propping up the Labour Party.
Over the last decade or so, wealthy jews have provided the labour party with huge sums of money. A number of figures have been quoted.

The labour government has received £12million in donations from david sainsbury, another £2million in loans from sainsbury. Lord levy raised £32 m in loans to enable the labour party to fight the 1997, 2001, and 2005, general elections. Lord sainsbury decided to step down from his position within the labour government after the controversy erupted. "Lord Sainsbury resigns (November 10 2006) as science minister but says that his decision is for personal reasons and has nothing to do with the inquiry." (‘'Cash-for-honours' timeline’ http://politics.guardian.co.uk/funding/story/0,,1972222,00.html February 1, 2007).

"Lord Levy is one of the most important fundraisers for the Labour Party and Tony Blair's unofficial envoy to the Middle East. Levy was in charge of donations to the 'private trust' which funded Tony Blair's office before the 1997 election (which reached £7 million), and is now the chief fundraiser for the 'high value' donors account at the Labour Party, along with his deputy Amanda Delew (who worked with him at Jewish Care). He is reported to have raised £12 million for the 'high value' fund before the 1997 election, becoming known as 'Mr Cashpoint'. Straight after the election he was given a peerage." (Red Star Research http://www.red-star-research.org.uk/subframe1.html).

Lord Levy, the prime minister's chief personal fundraiser who helped arrange many of the £14m of loans from a dozen businessmen, is among three people arrested and bailed during the inquiry." (Christopher Adams ‘Police close to quizzing Blair in cash-for-peerages probe’ http://www.ft.com/cms/s/55a80fa4-6f98-11db-ab7b-0000779e2340.html November 9 2006).


Blair uses Moslems as a Smokescreen to cover up the arrest of his Jewish Funder.
Blair is such a cynical, devious, and unscrupulous politician that the day after lord levy was arrested for a second time, tuesday january 31, 2007, blair pushed the police into mounting a massive raid to arrest a number of moslems alleged to have been involved in yet another terror plot. The intention was clearly to try and provide a public smokescreen for levy's latest arrest. Blair didn’t want his likudnik financier to be splashed all over the front pages because this might make the british public suspect that jewish donors were financing the labour government’s likudnik foreign policies. "One of the nine men arrested last week in connection with an alleged terrorism plot in Britain has claimed the operation was designed to distract attention from the cash-for-honours inquiry. Abu Bakr and another of the suspects were both released yesterday, while police have until tomorrow to question the other seven detainees. However, the two men released yesterday say the police never mentioned any such plot during seven days of interrogation." (‘Arrests 'designed to distract attention from Blair probe'’ http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/breaking-news/world/europe/article2249013.ece February 08, 2007).

What comes Round.
One of blair’s strongest cards in the run up to labour’s first general election success was his criticisms of the sleaze afflicting the tory party. How ironic then that blair is leaving office with this sleaze hanging around his neck.

Blair’s refusal to leave office is making the labour party more and more unpopular. It suffered heavy electoral losses the local elections of 2006 and even bigger losses are predicted for those to be held this year. And yet blair refuses to leave office to save the popularity of his party. He seems to believe that since he made labour popular enough to become elected in 1997 then he’s entitled to pursue his likudnik agenda even if it means destroying his party’s popularity and his country’s popularity around the rest of the world.

An Example of the Jewish Lobby and the Anti-War Movement in the UK

Poju zabludowcz’s .. "main interest lies in his london based business, ivory gate. .. the boss of ivory gate is also the mr moneybags behind .. bicom (the britain israel communications and research centre) the semi-public face of britain’s zionist lobby, charged with spinning israel’s case to the media. That there is a zionist lobby and that it is rich, potent and effective goes largely unquestioned on the left. Big jewry, like big tobacco, is seen as one of life’s givens. Read the liberal press almost any day of the week, and you will find that israel comes off worst. The truth is that the zionist lobby does exist but it is a clueless bunch." (Dennis Sewell New Statesman January 14, 2002 p.15-16).

Five years ago sewell seemed to believe bicom was just a front organization designed to defend the jews-only state in palestine (jos) and to present the jos in the best possible light in britain. And yet is it possible that bicom has since undergone a dramatic change in its political views? Bicom is now part of an alliance to encourage peace with iran. "Military action against Iran to shut down its nuclear programme would be "highly dangerous" and "counter-productive", a group of leading think-tanks and other experts warned. "Only through direct US-Iranian engagement can an agreement be found," it says. "The international community must do all they can to make sure the soft power options of sanctions and diplomacy prevent the unthinkable," said Lorna Fitzsimons, head of the British-Israel Communications and Research Centre. Among the report's authors are the development charity Oxfam, the Blairite think-tank the Foreign Policy Centre, along with Unison, Amicus and the GMB, three of Britain's biggest trade unions. Also co-authoring the report are religious organisations such as the Muslim Council of Britain, and Pax Christi, an international Christian anti-war charity." (‘Experts warn West against attacking Iran’ http://sg.news.yahoo.com/070205/1/46gq2.html February 06, 2007). It is not known whether bicom initiated the alliance or was just asked to join its ranks.

Politically, it is a positive step forward that bicom is part of an anti-war alliance but perhaps this alliance is not all that it seems. One of the other groups in this alliance is the blairite think-tank, 'the foreign policy centre' which, given blair's neocon warmongering is far from reassuring. But then again the alliance does have some progressive, left wing, and even religious, credentials given that other members include oxfam, three big trade unions and a couple of faith groups. "The charity Oxfam, unions Unison, GMB and Amicus, have been joined by the Muslim Parliament and Christian Solidarity Worldwide in signing the report." (‘Iran strike 'would be disastrous'’ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6330353.stm February 05, 2007). But then bicom's head makes clear its worries, "Former Labour MP Lorna Fitzsimons warned that time was "running out" to stop Iran becoming nuclear-armed." (‘Iran strike 'would be disastrous'’ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6330353.stm February 05, 2007). Sounding like a likudnik extremist who has cast iron proof of iran's intentions to create nuclear weapons, fitzsimons uses the platform provided by this alliance to sound the alarm against iran, ""But Ms Fitzsimons, chief executive of the Britain-Israel Communications and Research Centre, told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "What we are talking about here is Iran reaching the ability on an industrial scale to manufacture highly enriched uranium." Ms Fitzsimons said: "That is the watershed. There is no return from that point. You can't get the genie back in the bottle technologically once they have sorted out the problem they currently have with their centrifuges. I don't think you can stop it. You might be able to disrupt it. It's a question of looking at how far you can go down the line where you lose the ability to disrupt it."" (‘Iran strike 'would be disastrous'’ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6330353.stm February 05, 2007). Surely the issue is not iran developing nuclear power but the hypocrisy of western nations denying such power to iran? Surely the issue is jewish, american, and british, warmongering - launching unprovoked, pre-emptive wars against countries on the basis of lies and fabricated evidence?

Even worse is that this alliance supports sanctions against iran to force it to negotiate! This stance is based on a number of likudnik prejudices. Firstly, that it is iran which has opposed negotiations even though it was america which set terms for negotiations that makes any dialogue with iran impossible. Secondly, that iran is in the wrong for demanding its right under the non-proliferation treaty to develop civil nuclear power. Thirdly, that iran should be punished with unnamed sanctions - not merely united nations' sanctions but perhaps even crippling unilateral sanctions imposed by america and its allies.

The alliance's acceptance of sanctions against iran will do nothing to stop a war against iran since it is obvious, as happened in the build up to the invasion of iraq, that sanctions are a prelude to war. In conclusion, it has to be suggested that this 'anti-war alliance' is doing nothing to promote peace. It is simply disarming critics of the war to make an attack on iran much more publicly feasible. What the acceptance of sanctions against iran proves is that the poison of jewish bigotry has seeped so deeply into british political life that it has now become almost second nature.

Bush’s Diplomatic Triumphs leading America to a Global Catastrophe: Part One

Published January 08, 2007
Updated February 05, 2007

Bush on the Ropes?
For those of us who deplore the barbarism of america’s invasion and occupation of afghanistan and iraq and who have been waiting patiently for its warmongers to suffer another traumatic and ignominious military defeat like that in vietnam, it seemed in early november 2006 that the bush regime was finally on the ropes. The republican likudniks were defeated in the november 2006 midterm elections forcing bush to scapegoat his secretary of defence, donald rumsveld, and give up on the congressional ratification of his ambassador to the united nations, john bolten. It was believed the loss of these two major jew-ish neocons would critically undermine the jewish neocon’s death grip over the bush regime. The iraq study group’s report was highly critical of bush’s policies in iraq. It recommended negotiations with iran and syria which had been anathema to bush since the start of the proxy zionist ‘war on terror’. Top american military leaders were making it obvious in the media that they didn’t want more troops to be sent to iraq because they believed the problems there were political not military. The voices calling for a withdrawal of the american military from iraq were increasing even in congress – more accurately described as the american knesset where the jewish lobby writes legislation which it submits to the republican, and the democratic, likudnik parties for their assent. Dick cheney took to following bush to interviews and public speaking engagements to prevent him from wavering. American oil companies had just lost out on yet another major oil exploration contract in russia and were facing a bleak future struggling for survival in a world repulsed by their greed and political machinations. One commentator seemed to suffer a fever of optimism, "He (president bush) knows what's going on. He knows that Bush Senior, and Brzezinski, and Baker, and the rest of the "old order" Republicans have muscled in and are taking over. He knows he won't be able to bomb Iran, kill another 650,000 Iraqis, or declare martial law at home. And, he also knows that Conyers and the rest of them will be nosing-around the Halliburton "no bid" contracts; going through every sordid detail with a fine-tooth comb, and dredging up new scandals on a daily basis. It's a tough task. Bush is teetering and he's probably left the Cheney-Rumsfeld orbit already. Robert Gates' job is to influence Bush, to win him over with reason and, thus, move the country away from the brink of disaster. Cheney has been removed from the policy-making apparatus and he knows it." (Mike Whitney ‘Dead Ender, Gone Hunting ... Cheney in a Box’ http://www.counterpunch.org/whitney11112006.html November 11/12, 2006).

But, a mere two months later, bush seems to have brushed off his critics and the likudniks still dominate his regime. He has decided to support the neocons’ plan to send more troops to iraq as recommended in the american enterprise institute’s report ‘Choosing Victory: A Plan for Success in Iraq’. "This plan also flips on their head the key ideas emphasized by the Iraq Study Group: that the solution in Iraq is political and not military, and that U.S. forces must transition quickly away from combat roles and into training Iraqis. In the AEI plan, the United States would force a military solution that would, in turn, enable a political compromise. Retired Gen. Jack Keane, a plan supporter, called a military victory "the precondition for political, social and economic development." (Mark Benjamin ‘The Real Iraq Study Group’ http://fairuse.100webcustomers.com/sf/salon_1_06_07.htm January 06, 2007). Even worse, the likudnik’s plan for a surge of troops to iraq is only part of a broader plan to politically isolate, and militarily confront, iran. "The "surge" of US troops for Iraq is another deception. The surge's purpose has nothing to do with achieving victory in Iraq. Its purpose is to counter the pressure from the American public, Congress, and the US military to withdraw US troops from Iraq. Once a withdrawal begins, the neoconservative misadventure in the Middle East is at an end before its goals can be achieved. Delaying the withdrawal by proposing an escalation and provoking a debate gives Bush and Israel time to orchestrate an attack on Iran." (Paul Craig Roberts ‘The Evils of Escalation. Bush's State of Deception’ http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts01252007.html January 25, 2007). In other words, bush is continuing to implement the likudnik strategy first outlined in 1992 by paul wolfowitz and lewis libby then updated in 1996 by jewish commentators who later formed the likudnik lobby group ‘prospects for a new american century’.

Bush’s insistence on a military victory in iraq and iran is partly due to his determination to overcome his three major political failures. Firstly, failing to stop the pentagon and new york bombings because of his zionist induced preoccupation with invading iraq. Secondly, failing to establish law and order in afghanistan before transferring troops to the invasion and occupation of iraq. And, most catastrophically of all, invading iraq where the american military, acting like ‘a Bull in a china shop’ has provoked civil/religious/ideological/ethnic conflicts on an unprecedented scale. Saddam was an angel in comparison to bush and blair’s monstrous destruction of the country.

There is, however, another major reason for bush’s persistence with belligerent likudnik policies which have brought about such diabolical failures. Over the last few months the bush regime has achieved a string of major diplomatic successes. These have reinvigorated bush’s conviction that his likudnik hopes for a transformation of the middle east are still within his grasp and that he can redeem his losses with one more fling – his biggest political gamble: an attack on iran (and possibly syria) that could eventually force the submission of the greater middle east to the jews-only state in palestine (hereinafter the jos).

Bush referred to these diplomatic successes in his state of the union address, "Americans can have confidence in the outcome of this struggle - because we are not in this struggle alone. We have a diplomatic strategy that is rallying the world to join in the fight against extremism." Juan cole retorted. "Of all the lies and misrepresentations, this is the most egregious. Bush's policies have left the US isolated and deeply unpopular throughout the world. Some 75 percent of Indonesians had a positive view of the US before W. It has more lately been around 30% and at one point fell to 15%." (Juan Cole ‘Arguing With Bush’ http://www.juancole.com/2007_01_01_juanricole_archive.html January 24, 2007). Cole is wrong. Bush has achieved some remarkable diplomatic successes in creating a global alliance to confront, and eventually attack, iran. However, cole is correct about bush’s failure to win global public support for his strategy. A clear majority of people in many countries around the world detest and oppose what bush and his allies have done in iraq and what they might do to iran. "Despite two years of a concentrated effort by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and her public diplomacy major-domo Karen Hughes to boost Washington's global image, more people around the world have an unfavorable opinion of U.S. policies than at any time in recent memory, according to a new BBC poll released Monday." (Jim Lobe ‘Bush Continues to Unite the World... Against Him’ http://www.antiwar.com/lobe/?articleid=10375 January 23, 2007). There is a sharp contrast between bush’s successes in winning over governments around the world and his failure to win over global public opinion. The world’s likudnik triumvirate of bush, blair, and olmert, persist with their extreme fundamentalist policies because they probably believe that governments around the world will either be able to win over public opinion or are capable of ignoring it. Perhaps they believe that although they are alienating more and more people around the world a military success against iran will enable them to recover their popularity and perhaps even turn them into heroes who legitimately defied public opinion because they knew that what they were doing was right. One of the huge costs of so many world leaders adopting the likudniks’ strategy is the increasing divorce between governments and their electorates as if the views of the latter are of no concern to the former who believe they have been elected to do what they want, or more accurately what the likudniks want, in the field of foreign policies. Bush and his minions are so wrapped up in their likudnik ideology and their hopes for, and illusions of, military successes they are alienating and revolting public opinion around the world.

Over the last three years, anti war commentators have pointed out the disasters of bush’s policies in the middle east in an effort to counter his propaganda that victory was possible in iraq. It was only after the defeat of the republican likudniks in the november 2006 elections that the criticisms of bush’s policies in iraq reached a crescendo forcing him to face up to these disasters. Anti war commentators hoped that bush would adopt a more realistic and less belligerent foreign policy in the middle east. These hopes, however, were based on two errors almost as profound as those giving rise to bush’s hopes for a military victory in iraq. Firstly, the refusal of these commentators to accept that america is currently being ruled by a jewish elite which supports extreme likudnik policies. America’s ruling jewish elite might suffer political or military setbacks but until its power has been curbed or defeated it will continually find ways of ploughing on with the same strategy. All that the jewish ruling elite did after the november 2006 elections was readjust its tactics to disarm its critics and then press on with the next stage of its strategy. Secondly, anti-war commentators failed to appreciate that whilst bush’s policies in afghanistan and iraq were a disaster, his policies for the next stage in the jewish conquest of the greater middle east were winning approval from heads of state in europe and the arab world. Bush was never going to abandon course when he was accumulating so many significant diplomatic successes. Bush’s policies in the greater middle east are being driven by success not failure - although these successes will ultimately lead him to an even bigger catastrophe than those currently being experienced in afghanistan and iraq.

Iraq.
It would be wrong to describe anything in the american induced hell of iraq as a success but even here there is a diplomatic chink of light that gives bush hope for a military success in iraq.

Since the invasion of iraq, the american military has been able to remain in the country only because of the consent of the kurdish and shia parties in the iraqi parliament – although it does have support from a small, but rapidly declining, number of sunni mps. However, one of the biggest shia factions led by moqtada al sadr who also runs a militia called the mahdi army, has opposed the american occupation from the beginning and, over the last year or so, has been making increasingly vociferous demands for the americans to leave the country. Sadr has been so successful in winning popularity for his stance that it has started to undermine the parliamentary acceptance of the american military in iraq. The iraqi prime minister, nuri al-maliki, heads the united iraqi alliance which includes the sadr group of deputies. He has refused to demand that america should leave but has also refused to allow the american military to attack the mahdi army. These contradictions came to a head when maliki agreed to meet bush in jordan to discuss iraq’s future. Moqtada al sadr protested about the meeting and withdrew his faction from the iraqi parliament. The bush regime’s response was to try and trigger a coup to replace maliki with abdul aziz al-hakim, leader of the supreme council for the islamic revolution in iraq (sciri) who seemed willing to countenance the idea of the american military confronting the mahdi army. "Ignoring all sense, the president is trying to cobble together, brick by brick, an Iraqi government that is able and willing to do what Maliki’s regime can’t or won’t do: break the back of the Muqtada al-Sadr Mahdi Army and redouble the offensive against the Sunni-led Iraqi resistance." (Robert Dreyfuss ‘Bush v. The Two Majorities’ http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2006/12/13/bush_v_the_two_majorities.php December 13, 2006).

When al-hakim announced his own plans for talks with bush he was condemned by moqtada al-sadr but defied his opposition. "The talks are aimed at forming a new parliamentary bloc that will likely exclude supporters of Shi'ite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, who is a vehement opponent of the US military presence. It would be led by senior Shi'ite politician Abdul Aziz al-Hakim of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), who met with Bush last week in Washington. Hakim, however, is unlikely to be the next prime minister, preferring the role of powerbroker and promoting Shi'ite Vice President Adel Abdel Mahdi to the position." (Iason Athanasiadis ‘The search for an Iraqi kingmaker’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HL15Ak06.html December 15, 2006).

The great advantage for bush of such a coup would have been turning al-hakim not merely against his fellow shiites but against iran. "Given that Iran's Supreme Leader [Ali al-] Khamenei recently reiterated that the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq was necessary, Hakim's visit and request for a continuing US presence indicates a possible split between him and his former supporters in Iran." (Niki Akhavan, a US-based political analyst of Iranian descent, quoted in Iason Athanasiadis ‘The search for an Iraqi kingmaker’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HL15Ak06.html December 15, 2006).

The likudniks in the american media, congress, think-tanks, and the bush regime, believe that a sciri government would pose a direct threat to iran. "The heart of Gerecht’s piece is this: That a Shiite power in Iraq will undermine the clergy’s rule in Iran, and is part of a needed Bush administration offensive against the hard-liners in Teheran. Quote: "Such a government supported by Iraq’s Shiite establishment is a dagger aimed at Teheran’s clerical dictatorship."" (Robert Dreyfuss ‘Neocons in Black Turbans’ http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2004/12/15/neocons_in_black_turbans.php December 15, 2004).

So far these political maneuverings have come to nothing. When the shia factions consulted iraq’s leading religious authority, grand ayatollah, al sistani for his advice about the proposed changes, he insisted that shiites must remain united in their parliamentary alliance, the united iraqi alliance. "Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani has rejected a plan for a new coalition in the Iraqi parliament that would ally the Shiite Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq with the Sunni Arab Iraqi Islamic Party and the Kurdistan Alliance. The plan aimed at isolating the 32 Sadrist members of parliament and depriving them of the ability to bring down the prime minister. The Sadrists follow young Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, whose Mahdi Army paramilitary has emerged as a major security threat to Baghdad." (Juan Cole ‘Sistani Rejects New Sunni-Shiite Coalition’ http://www.juancole.com/2006_12_01_juanricole_archive.html December 24, 2006).

Bush’s position in iraq is akin to the motorist who asks a local for directions only to be told it would have been better if he’d not started from where he was. In the middle east, bush is supported primarily by sunni arab states. However, wealthy sunni individuals within these states are secretly funding, and probably arming, the sunni insurgents who are killing american troops. Thousands of sunnis from these countries, especially saudi arabia, are crossing into iraq to help sunni insurgents to kill american troops. But the bush regime never mentions let alone criticizes these interventions in iraq. However, it vigorously denounces iran and syria for allegedly supplying ‘insurgents’ with improvised explosive devices (ieds) and for allowing iranians and syrians to cross into iraq to attack american troops. "This begins with addressing Iran and Syria. These two regimes are allowing terrorists and insurgents to use their territory to move in and out of Iraq. Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops. We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We will interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq." (‘President Bush Addresses Nation on Iraq War’ http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/10/AR2007011002208_pf.html January 10, 2007). But there is no evidence to back up bush’s allegations. On the contrary, there is overwhelming circumstantial evidence that iranian shias would never help iraqi sunnis to kill iraqi shias.

Bush’s position in iraq is even more bizarre than this suggests. He needs the support of shiite nationalists not merely against shiite internationalists aligned with iran but against shiite localists who support the partition of the country. Unfortunately for him the main shiite nationalist who objects to iranian interference in iraq and opposes partition is moqtada al-sadr whilst bush’s putative ally, al-hakim, is the most prominent shiite internationalist and a leading supporter of the partition of iraq! What is more, al-sadr has close contacts with sunni resistance forces which would eventually enable them to reach a peace accord whereas al hakim’s badr militia vehemently attacks sunni militias which would make his efforts for reaching peace with the sunnis that much more difficult.

Bush cannot be blamed entirely for his bizarre predicament. Although iran wants the americans out of iraq, it is the iranian aligned sciri faction and the badr militia which wants the americans to stay whilst the more nationalist mahdi militia wants them to go. "That this is about to happen (sending more troops to attack sunni insurgents) is all but certain, in spite of noises coming from the Democratic peanut gallery. It's all part of the administration's grand strategy – or, rather, the neocons' strategy, which is one and the same thing – and it's not like this has been any great secret. The idea is that a U.S./Shi'ite alliance would act as a brake on Iran. The big problem for the Americans is that the Sadrists are militantly anti-American, as well as hyper-nationalistic, and that the supposedly "moderate" SCIRI and Da'wa Party activists tend to be more pro-Iranian. Nevertheless, it appears that the U.S. has chosen SCIRI as the new American client in Iraq, and is now planning an offensive against the Sadrists, which is what the proposed "surge" is partially about." (Justin Raimondo ‘Mission Accomplished. The War Party meant to destroy Iraq – and so they did’ http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=10253 January 3, 2007).

Although bush failed to bring about the political realignment he wanted in iraq he seems to have succeeded recently in persuading prime minister al-maliki to support the curbing of the mahdi army – an objective he’d previously been reluctant to implement. "Al-Hayat reports in Arabic that its sources in the Iraqi government are saying that there are some secret paragraphs to the agreement between the Bush administration and the al-Maliki government in Iraq to act against militia leaders. The article suggests that the model of the US raid on an Iranian liason office in Irbil might be deployed against Mahdi Army leaders and against Sunni Arab guerrilla commanders. That is, such raids would be small, targeted, quick and involve kidnapping suspected wrongdoers. The article also quotes US ambassador in Baghdad, Zalmay Khalilzad, as saying that al-Maliki promised Bush that he would confront the [Shiite] Mahdi Army." (Juan Cole ‘Maliki Said to Have Pledged Mahdi Crackdown’ http://www.juancole.com/2007_01_01_juanricole_archive.html January 13, 2007).

Diplomatic Successes.
India.
Bush’s first major diplomatic success in isolating iran came in september 2006 when he managed to persuade india to vote in favour of an american sponsored resolution critical of iran – one of the many steps leading eventually to un sanctions against iran. "By voting for a Western-sponsored resolution at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), meant to reprimand Iran, India has signaled the collapse of its long-standing policy of nonalignment. Capping recent agreements signed with the United States on military and civilian nuclear cooperation within an increasingly closer "strategic partnership" with it, this constitutes the greatest shift in New Delhi's foreign policy since independence from colonial rule in 1947. "By taking this disgraceful step, India is indicating that it has become a camp-follower of Washington," said Gulshan Dietl, a West Asia expert at the School of International Studies at Jawaharlal Nehru University here. "The Indian vote," says Dietl, "militates against the national interest and will greatly lower India's global stature and credibility. If India could stab a friendly country like Iran in the back, despite its close economic and political relations with it, it won't be trusted by many other developing countries."" (Praful Bidwai ‘India Ditches Iran and Nonalignment’ http://www.antiwar.com/bidwai/?articleid=7423 September 28, 2005).

Splitting the Sunnis from the Shias.
When the americans invaded iraq and overthrew saddam’s secular government, which was drawn mostly from the sunni sector of society and which had stood as a bulwark against shia iran, it generated anxieties amongst sunni arab states. When the americans agreed to hold elections in iraq which were won by the shiite alliance this increased fears amongst sunni arab states. In 2004, the king of jordan expressed his concerns about the emergence of a shiite crescent running from iran through iraq to lebanon. It needs to be appreciated that the majority of sunnis and shias in the middle east have lived in peace with each other for centuries and that worries about the rise of shia states has been confined primarily to sunni arab despots who fear increasing unrest from their shiite minorities. This fear has not been shared by the sunni masses who are closely integrated with their shiite co-religionists. However, the american invasion of iraq did set in motion an increasing conflict between the three main sectors of iraqi society: sunnis, shias, and kurds. This exploded into life after the february 2006 destruction of the askariyah (golden dome) shrine at samarra. The only people who are deliberately provoking a religious conflict are the likudnik americans who would rather that moslems attack each other than the american military; the jos which would benefit from a religious war between sunnis and shias; and the sunni arab despots who want to regain their dominance of the middle east. It has not been provoked by the broad masses of moslems, nor by rising shia powers such as hezbollah and iran.

Over the summer 2006, the jos launched a pre-planned, grossly disproportionate attack on lebanese civilians, mainly shias. Despite this appalling attack on a moslem society, sunni arab states shocked the world by blaming hezbollah for starting the war. Sunni arab dictators seemed more concerned with oppressing shiite moslems than they were with opposing a jewish attack on moslems. Condolessa rice announced that the war represented "the birth pangs of a new middle east" and gave the jos time to accomplish its mission in lebanon. Her use of this phrase indicated that america was prepared to stimulate religious conflicts and use wars to implement her proxy zionist policies. Politically, rice’s statement turned out to be a stillbirth as hezbollah inflicted grievous wounds on the jewish army. However, the jews’ attack on lebanon and the support given to them by sunni arab dictatorships added further momentum to the conflicts between the two branches of islam – despite the fact that hezbollah received widespread support from sunnis all over the middle east. The subsequent conflicts between shias and sunnis in lebanon have been stirred up by the refusal of the siniora government, backed by sunni autocrats, to accede to hezbollah’s justifiable demands for their full share of power in lebanon’s fledgling democratic system. The siniora government refuses to allow hezbollah to acquire any more political power in lebanon because firstly, sunni arab states are opposed to the rise of a shia crescent and because the jewish lobby in america has pushed successive american administration’s into defining hezbollah as a terrorist organization even though it has long since renounced such tactics.

Despite the initial public revulsion of her policy pronouncement, rice has continued to encourage sunni arab dictatorships to join forces with the jos to contain/attack iran, lebanon, and syria, and to abandon the palestinians to their fate. "Before she (Condoleezza Rice) left Washington, a State Department spokesman, Sean McCormack, spelled out her view of things. Contrary to popular belief, he explained, the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is not at the heart of the Middle East crisis. The defining issue today is the struggle between "moderates" and "extremists." Dr Rice sees her main task as urging the moderates to unite against the extremists. In other words, the U.S. Secretary of State's mission is to attempt to mobilize Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States against Iran, Syria, Hezbollah and Hamas. This may be what Israel and its friends are demanding, but it is not what the United States should do. It will not resolve the region's old conflicts. It will only create new ones. Perhaps Condoleezza Rice would have done better to stay at home." (Patrick Seale ‘Stay Home, Ms. Rice’ http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2006/10/03/stay_home_ms_rice.php October 03, 2006). In late 2006, rice’s policy started bearing fruit.

Saudi-Jos Co-operation.
Saudi arabia’s ambassador to the united states, prince turki al-faisal, supported negotiations with iran to solve a number of the middle east’s problems. "Saudi Ambassador Turki Al-Faisal said military conflict with Iran would be counterproductive and would turn the Persian Gulf into an inferno. Faisal spoke to reporters in Washington. "Definitely you would see, if you're talking about $70 a barrel oil now, you would see that perhaps double or triple as a result of the conflict," he said." (Barry Wood ‘Saudi Official Says Oil Price Could Triple in Event of Military Conflict Over Iran’ http://www.voanews.com/english/2006-06-20-voa82.cfm June 20, 2006). In december 2006, turki al-faisal fired nawaf obaid, a consultant who had written an opinion piece in the washington post contending that "one of the first consequences" of an American pullout of Iraq would "be massive Saudi intervention to stop Iranian-backed Shiite militias from butchering Iraqi Sunnis." (Helene Cooper ‘Saudis Give a Grim What If Should U.S. Opt to Leave Iraq’ http://fairuse.100webcustomers.com/sf/nyt12_13_6_2.htm December 13, 2006).

The firing of obaid led to turki al-faisal’s resignation thereby revealing the ascendancy of pro-likudnik forces within the saudi ruling family. "In his private talks with U.S. national security officials, journalists and other foreign diplomats, Turki had been advising the U.S. to engage in direct talks with Iran, which is the kingdom's principal rival for influence in the oil-rich Gulf. "We talk to Iran all the time," Turki told this reporter, "why can't you?" But other, currently more influential, voices among the Saudi royals, were truculently bellicose. Proselytized by Prince Bandar, the kingdom's national security chief, and Turki's predecessor in Washington for a record-setting 22 years, king Abdullah, Defense Minister Sultan, and Interior Minister Naif bin Abd al-Aziz, also a Sudairi Seven, had become convinced that nothing short of military action would deter Iran from becoming the world's 10th nuclear power. Since Turki became ambassador, Bandar made several secret trips to the U.S., ostensibly to visit his palatial Aspen mansion (56,000 square feet, larger than the White House, set on its own mountain top of 95 acres, that includes 15 bedrooms and 16 bathrooms with 24-karat gold fixtures, now listed for sale at $135 million). But Bandar had permission to land at Andrews Air Force base outside Washington, ostensibly for refueling, which allowed him to move incognito to Camp David for meetings with National Security Adviser Stephen J. Hadley. Bandar also met with NSC Middle East Director Elliott Abrams, a prominent neocon. Turki believes he was kept in the dark about a number of important meetings on his own turf, as it were. Turki was also angered that his own king had asked Vice President Dick Cheney to meet with him at short notice in Riyadh, but Turki was not invited to attend, an unusual omission as such summit meetings go. Bandar, not the ailing and longest serving Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Feisal, 75, who is Turki's brother, wrote the post-summit briefing for Turki. Last month, Bandar also met secretly with Israeli, Egyptian and Jordanian national security and intelligence chiefs in Sharm El Sheikh at the tip of the Sinai Peninsula. His American, Israeli and Arab interlocutors share his alarm over Iran's nuclear ambitions and believe preemptive air strikes will become necessary in 2007. A new existential alliance appears to be in gestation against Iran's nuclear program. There is a growing convergence of opinion among the leaders of Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt that only an aerial bombardment of 17 known nuclear sites could retard Iran's nuclear ambitions by five to 10 years. One U.S. intel topsider remarked (not for attribution), "If we can gain five years that way, it's worth considering." He speculated Iran's moderate reformers could gain power in the interim." (Arnaud de Borchgrave ‘Arabian Medicis’ http://www.upi.com/InternationalIntelligence/view.php?StoryID=20061227-082153-2822r December 27, 2006).

One of the points raised by nawaf obaid in his washington post article was that saudi arabia was so intent on curbing iran’s growing power that it should attempt to reduce oil prices to undermine iran’s huge fossil fuel revenues. "Mr. Obaid also suggested that Saudi Arabia could cut world oil prices in half by raising its production, a move that he said "would be devastating to Iran, which is facing economic difficulties even without today’s high oil prices." (Helene Cooper ‘Saudis Give a Grim What If Should U.S. Opt to Leave Iraq’ http://fairuse.100webcustomers.com/sf/nyt12_13_6_2.htm December 13, 2006). Although such a proposal was publicly disavowed by the saudi government this is indeed the strategy it has been pursuing. "Oil prices have fallen 17% over the past few months, now heading toward US$50 a barrel. Surprisingly, the Saudis are not interested in stemming the price drop. Ibrahim al-Naimi, the Saudi oil minister, during a recent trip to India said oil prices were headed in the "right direction". This is in line with the Saudi plan laid out by Nawaf Obaid - a former special adviser to the Saudi ambassador in Washington - in the Washington Post a few months back in which Obaid outlined Saudi Arabia's course of action in the face of the growing conflict in Iraq and the probable US withdrawal from that country. The Saudis, Obaid stated, would act to lower global oil prices to weaken Iran and intervene in Iraq by supporting Sunni tribes. The idea is to weaken Iran financially, because 85% of Iran's export income comes from oil and 40% of gasoline used in Iran is imported (even though it is the fourth-largest producer of crude oil) because of a lack of local refining capacity." (Amandeep Sandhu ‘Iran being hit in the pocket’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IA23Ak01.html January 23, 2007); "Also, they (sunni states) promise to provide facilities and funding to support US efforts in the region and against Iran, and to try to bring down the price of oil, both to relieve political pressure on Bush and "make life more difficult for Iran."" (Jim Lobe ‘Mideast Strategy Increasingly Targets Iran’ http://www.antiwar.com/lobe/?articleid=10401 January 26, 2007).

Bush’s opportunities for implementing the likudniks’ strategy for the greater middle east have increased significantly now that, for the first time, he has won support for such a policy from sunni arab states. "Still in the grip of the neoconservative cabal which has destroyed his presidency by its insane belligerence, Bush continues to see the Tehran-Damascus-Hezbollah-Hamas axis as the main enemy to confront and bring down. The real danger this year is that Saudi Arabia, alarmed at the rise of Iran and the self-assertion of Shiite communities in Lebanon and the Gulf region, will be persuaded to side with the US against Tehran." (Patrick Seale ‘Attack on Iran could bring devastation to Arab world’ http://www.businessday.co.za/articles/topstories.aspx?ID=BD4A351269 January 04, 2007); "The real danger for Iran will be if in the coming year Saudi Arabia is persuaded to cooperate with a US-Israeli military strike against Iran." (M K Bhadrakumar 'The door we never opened ...' http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IA06Ak01.html January 06, 2007); "Iran is watching closely the growing coordination of Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt with Israel at the operative level in Lebanon and Palestine. Israel, of course, has not hesitated to "leak" from time to time the details of its covert dealings with Riyadh and Cairo." (M K Bhadrakumar 'The door we never opened ...' http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IA06Ak01.html January 06, 2007).

Members of the jewish military publicly muse about the jos’s co-operation with saudi arabia. "In a stark statement published on Saturday Brigadier General Oded Tira observed, "As an American strike in Iran is essential for our existence, we must help him pave the way by lobbying the Democratic Party (which is conducting itself foolishly) and US newspaper editors. We need to do this in order to turn the Iranian issue to a bipartisan one and unrelated to the Iraq failure." As if all of that Israel-lobbying in America and Europe were not enough, General Tira proposes an even more aggressive political tactic, "We must clandestinely cooperate with Saudi Arabia so that it also persuades the US to strike Iran." (Michael Carmichael ‘Israeli general suggests to use Azerbaijan's airbases in strike against Iran’ http://www.today.az/news/politics/34565.html January 02, 2007); "In a further significant development, thanks to Iran’s deep engagement in Iraq, there is now an open rift between the majority Sunni branch of Islam and the Shiites. Israelis now boast that the "moderate" Arab Sunni states, who feel threatened by the newly empowered Iran and its regional reach through its Shia allies, are cooperating with Israel out of a new-found confluence of interests." (Anne Penketh ‘Israel raises nuclear stakes with Iran’ http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article2183872.ece January 25, 2007).

The saudi, egyptian and jordanian, despots want an end to the democracy in iraq which has gives the shiites majority control of the government. They want an end to lebanese democracy which gives hezbollah political power and legitimacy. And they want to curb iran’s powers – perhaps even the break up of the democratic iranian state to allow the establishment of a number of sunni statelets in the country. In other words, they want to curb shiite political power, which is flourishing in the only democracies in the arab world. They want to consolidate, and extend, sunni despotic power over the shias. To achieve this objective they need the help of their american and jewish allies. They have already shown in lebanon that they are eager to use the racist jewish state to slaughter their co-religionists. But the new alliance between saudi arabia and the jos resembles the Animal exhibitionist who shows off by putting his hand between the Crocodile’s jaws. For the moment the saudis prefer to ignore the fact that the jos is aiding kurdish independence which would mean the loss of a large chunk out of what is currently regarded as arab land for the establishment of a kurdish state. And they are also putting aside the strong likelihood that once the likudniks have decimated palestine, iraq, lebanon, iran, and possibly syria, then they will shift their attention to saudi arabia, jordan, and egypt. The likudniks’ long term objectives are the partitioning of the kingdom and the recovery of the sinai desert. And yet, to the saudis, the Crocodile looks so docile!

The Gulf Co-operation Council.
Another of the bush regime’s successes in shifting the allegiance of sunni despots away from the islamic world to the jos was persuading members of the gulf cooperation council to join an american led, multi-national, naval exercise in the gulf to intimidate iran. The gcc consists of six countries - saudi arabia, qatar, bahrain, oman, kuwait, and the united arab emirates. "War games designed to intercept ships carrying weapons of mass destruction will take place for the first time today in the Gulf opposite Iran. The naval exercise – organized under the US’s 2003 Proliferation Security Initiative – will include Bahrain, one of the regional states and host to a US naval base. Bahrain’s participation is a first for an Arab country. Kuwait, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates are sending observers. Australia, France, Italy, the UK, the US and Bahrain are providing vessels and other assets." (Guy Dinmore, Roula Khalaf, and Najmeh Bozorgmehr ‘WMD intercept exercise set to begin in the Gulf’ http://www.ft.com/cms/s/8b0a05b8-678b-11db-8ea5-0000779e2340.html October 29 2006).

Since the passing of united nations’ sanctions against iran, the american navy has established a naval blockade of iran with help from gcc countries. "The GCC Arabs are also planning their largest ever joint exercise - Peninsula Shield - to test interoperability. By reinforcing their naval presence inside and outside the Gulf, the U.S., Britain, and Gulf navies keep demonstrating that the military option is very much on the table. A second U.S. carrier task force will be on station in early 2007. Gulf countries possess over half the world's oil reserves." (Arnaud de Borchgrave ‘Arabian Medicis’ http://www.upi.com/InternationalIntelligence/view.php?StoryID=20061227-082153-2822r December 27, 2006).

America’s jewish lobby is planning visits to gulf states to consolidate jos-gulf state relationships. "The main umbrella group of American Jewish organizations is set to visit Dubai and Abu Dhabi next month in a sign of the growing concern among Sunni regimes over Iran’s nuclear and regional ambitions. The trip, by a delegation from the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations to the main power centers of the United Arab Emirates, is notable because the Sunni-majority UAE does not have formal diplomatic ties with Israel. The UAE has no diplomatic ties with Israel and still adheres to the primary Arab boycott against trade with the Jewish state. Even though it abandoned the so-called secondary and tertiary boycotts against third-party firms that trade with Israel, the American Jewish delegation will not be flying directly from Israel; instead it will travel via Amman, Jordan, to reach the UAE." (Marc Perelman ‘Groups Head to Emirates, as Worries Grow Over Iran’ http://www.forward.com/articles/groups-head-to-emirates-as-worries-grow-over-iran/ January 19, 2007).

Egypt.
It is now transparent for the first time that sunni arab despots fear and hate the emergence of a shia crescent across the middle east, more than they do the jos – despite the fact that several jewish politicians have made no secret of their desire to destabilize and partition all arab states. Egypt has signed up to this major political development, "Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak has backed American attempts to force Iran to stay out of Iraq. Mubarak, in remarks delivered to Egypt's weekly Al Osboa, warned Tehran to remain outside Iraq. "Iran is trying to gain support in Iraq and in the region and I say to all: don't touch Iraq," the Egyptian President said. "Iraq is capable of maintaining its unity if the regional and international forces stop interfering in its affairs. But if the current situation continues, the fear is that Iraq will be transformed into warring states," he added." (Joseph S. Mayton ‘Egypt's President Tells Iran To Stay Away From Iraq’ http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7006121743 January 12, 2007).

It was hardly surprising that sunni autocratic states endorsed bush’s plan for a surge in iraq especially because it also implied a subsequent purge of iran. "During their meeting with Rice, the foreign ministers of the six Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) member countries, Jordan and Egypt pledged backing for Bush’s new strategy that envisages, among other things, the dispatch of 20,000 additional US troops to Iraq." (‘US luring Arab states into anti-Iran role: experts’ http://www.thenews.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=39606 January 20, 2007).

This major political realignment is a far cry from the days of islamic unity which was still being paraded six months earlier. "The 57-member Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC) said negotiations over Iran's controversial nuclear program should resume "without any preconditions" in its Baku Declaration adopted on the final day of a three-day meeting. The 57 member states of the OIC, an organisation spanning from the Pacific to the Mediterranean, expressed concern that the continuing stand-off over Iran's nuclear programme could destabilize the region. "We reaffirm the basic and inalienable right of all member states to develop research, production and the use of atomic energy for peaceful purposes in conformity with their respective legal obligations," the Baku Declaration added. The OIC also called for the establishment of a nuclear weapons free zone in the Middle East and for the "prompt placement" of Israel under the control of the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)." (Karim Talbi and Simon Ostrovsky ‘Muslim World backs Iran over Nuclear Talks’ http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060621/wl_mideast_afp/irannuclearpoliticsazerbaijanoic_060621141823 June 21, 2006).

The Abandonment of the Palestinians.
Sunni arab states are now overtly on the same side as the jos. As a consequence they have politically neutered themselves in stopping and reversing the jews’ decimation of the palestinians. In effect, they have abandoned the palestinians to the jews’ final solution. The bush regime’s policy of dividing sunni dictatorial states from shia democratic states, and persuading them to support the jos, is a huge political victory.

America Jeopardizing Syria’s Alliance with Iran.
Syria has had a close relationship with iran since the rise of saddam in iraq and the islamic revolution in iran. In the early 1980s most sunni arab dictators supported saddam’s proxy american invasion of iran. "Iraq's invasion of Iran in September 1980, which heralded the start of the eight-year Iran-Iraq War, was greeted with cautious optimism in Riyadh. While the Saudis did not want an outright Iraqi victory, they hoped Iraqi president Saddam Hussein would contain and exhaust the Iranian revolution. It was this objective that informed the kingdom's decision to underwrite Iraq's war effort by channeling billions of dollars to the Ba'athist regime in Baghdad. The Kuwaitis took a similar measure and made substantial contributions to Iraq's war effort." (Mahan Abedin ‘Saudi bid for influence shattered’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HI02Ak01.html September 02, 2006). Syria was the only arab country to support iran. After the assassination of rafiq hariri in 2005, it came under intense american and international pressure and entered into a military alliance with iran. Iran promised to come to its assistance if it was attacked by the jos. However, as international pressure has mounted on iran over its non-existent wmds, syria seems increasingly unwilling to reciprocate.

Assad has virtually been begging the jos and america for negotiations and a peace treaty but he has met with little success. Politicians from the west have been making contacts with assad to explore the chances of a peace treaty. "They all come to explore the potential for involving Syria in tackling the Middle East's problems, including the violence in Iraq and the possibility of prising Damascus away from its alliance with Iran." (Ferry Biedermann and Roula Khalaf ‘Western politicians take the road to Damascus’ http://www.ft.com/cms/s/54274c54-91e3-11db-a945-0000779e2340.html December 22, 2006). Private talks have been taking place between syrian and jewish academics to discuss various solutions. "So when news broke this week in Israel's respected newspaper Haaretz, that Israel and Syria had reached a series of secret understandings, it is no surprise that it sent shock waves through a region often plagued by stalemate and violence." (Ilene R. Prusher ‘Syrian, Israeli backdoor talks now emerging’ http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0118/p01s02-wome.html January 18, 2007). Doubtlessly with american approval, sunni arab states are currently attempting to woo it away from iran. "For their part, according to Sick, (a Columbia University professor who served as former President Jimmy Carter's chief advisor on Iran) the Sunni-led Arab states, which include all members of the Gulf Cooperation Council, Egypt and Jordan, have agreed to provide major funding and political support to the Siniora government in Lebanon and "to woo (or threaten) Syria away from its alliance with Iran."" (Jim Lobe ‘Mideast Strategy Increasingly Targets Iran’ http://www.antiwar.com/lobe/?articleid=10401 January 26, 2007). Whether these contacts are concerned about peace or are just endeavouring to jeopardize syrian support for iran is not known.

President assad refused an iranian invitation to meet with the presidents of iraq and iran to try and find ways of bringing some stability to iraq. Assad has recently embarked on a diplomatic tour which points in the direction of his terminating syria’s alliance with iran. "A series of visits by Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to staunch US allies Yemen and the United Arab Emirates culminating in talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscow this week is prompting speculation that Syria has finally decided to leave the Iranian orbit." (Iason Athanasiadis ‘Syria flirts with the West’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HL22Ak03.html December 22, 2006).

It would be easy for the jews to politically neutralize syria prior to any attack on iran. "Again there are two alternatives. The first: to start negotiations with Bashar al-Assad, who is making public overtures. That means being ready to give back the Golan Heights and allow the 60 thousand Syrian refugees to return home. In return, Sunni Syria could well cut itself loose from Iran and Hizbullah and join the front of Sunni states. Since Syria is both Sunni and secular-nationalist, that may also have a positive effect on the Palestinians." (Uri Avnery ‘Olmert's Courtship of Abbas’ http://www.counterpunch.org/avnery01062007.html January 6/7, 2007). But it is highly unlikely they would give up the golan heights.

The chance of peace between syria and the jos is negligible. But, conversely, the chance of war is also negligible in as much as syria is unlikely to pre-emptively attack the jos. Assad may not want to give up hope of recovering the golan heights but equally he is not willing to go to war with the jos in order to retrieve it. He is probably also unwilling to go to iran’s aid if it is attacked by the jos. Even some jewish military strategists believe he will do everything to avoid war. "Syria could also be drawn into a wider war, although the Israelis believe that both Syria and Russia would remain on the sidelines." (Anne Penketh ‘Israel raises nuclear stakes with Iran’ http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article2183872.ece January 25, 2007).

Bringing Pakistan and the Taliban back into the Sunni Fold.
Since the pentagon and new york bombings, the bush regime has sought the extermination of al quaeda and the taliban and has been exerting severe pressure on pakistan’s leader, general musharraf, to help eradicate these groups who, after fighting nato in afghanistan, seek refuge over the border in pakistan. Over the years this pressure has varied from american threats to nuke pakistan, to gross public humiliation (when bush refused to legitimize pakistan’s nuclear industry as he intended to do for india), to american military intrusions into pakistan. The likudniks in the bush regime rarely took into account musharraf’s precarious political position in pakistan. The more that musharraf acted on america’s behalf, the greater the revolts it used to trigger from the country’s islamic political parties and religiously minded populace almost invariably jeopardizing his political, and even physical, survival. It almost seemed as if the likudniks relished conflict and civil war in pakistan. In the summer 2005, they decided to ditch musharraf in favour of an alliance with india which had been increasing its presence in afghanistan helping with reconstruction.

However, the sunni arab states’ major political realignment over the summer 2006 led to a rekindling of their appreciation of pakistan’s strategic importance which in turn necessitated the bush regime’s reappraisal of pakistan. There is a long history of co-operation between the two sunni nations of saudi arabia and pakistan. In the 1980s, the saudis were the main financial backers of the mujadeen who kicked the soviet union out of afghanistan. "Once Reagan replaced Carter, Wilson (Charlie Wilson represented the 2nd District of Texas in the U.S. House of Representatives) was able to restore Zia's aid money and added several millions to the CIA's funds for secretly arming the Afghan guerrillas, each dollar of which the Saudi government secretly matched. Although Wilson romanticized the mountain warriors of Afghanistan, the struggle was never as uneven as it seemed. Pakistan provided the fighters with sanctuary, training and arms and even sent its own officers into Afghanistan as advisors on military operations. Saudi Arabia served as the fighters' banker, providing hundred of millions with no strings attached. Several governments, including those of Egypt, China and Israel, secretly supplied arms. And the insurgency enjoyed the backing of the United States through the CIA." (Chalmers Johnson ‘The Largest Covert Operation in CIA History’ http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig4/johnson-chalmers2.html March 7, 2005). In the 1990s they were the main financial supporters of the taliban who established themselves in power in afghanistan and restricted iran’s northern alliance to an enclave on the afghan border. The saudis funneled money to these sunni groups through pakistan. Once sunni arab states decided they needed to contain iranian influence in the middle east, they renewed their support for sunni dominated pakistan which they believed could play a vital role in containing iran. They have been trying to persuade the bush regime of pakistan’s strategic importance to the containment of iran.

In the latter half of january 2007, a welter of political developments have suddenly revealed that the bush likudniks have accepted the sunni states’ tactics and have dramatically changed their evaluation of musharraf. They suddenly stopped exerting pressure on musharraf to tackle the taliban, and are backing his attempts at re-election. (Only a few months ago they were launching cruise missiles at pakistan villages in an attempt to exterminate al quaeda operatives believed to be hiding out there because they were impatient with the efforts of the pakistani army to capture or kill such operatives. The resulting deaths of innocent pakistani civilians led to mass demonstrations against this new likudnik tactic which severely undermined musharraf’s grip on power). Suddenly, nato formally recognized pakistan as an ally. "Equally, Pakistan and NATO seem to have finalized their agreement establishing an institutionalized framework of cooperation." (M K Bhadrakumar ‘US elevates Pakistan to regional kingpin’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/IA27Df02.html January 27, 2007). Musharaff will allow nato forces to ferry supplies into afghanistan via pakistan rather than having to rely upon russian airspace and thus russian goodwill. Nato is thus gaining "a foothold on the Persian Gulf region's eastern periphery." This gives nato a substantial strategic benefit: "Most important, the configuration works to the great advantage of the US in the event of an outbreak of military hostilities against Iran, which borders Pakistan." (M K Bhadrakumar ‘US elevates Pakistan to regional kingpin’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/IA27Df02.html January 27, 2007). Nato now deems pakistan as an ally in its increasingly fictitious war on terror. "Formal NATO-Pakistan cooperation is bound to impact on the "war on terror" in Afghanistan. As the NATO spokesman succinctly put it, Pakistan will henceforth become "part of the solution"." (M K Bhadrakumar ‘US elevates Pakistan to regional kingpin’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/IA27Df02.html January 27, 2007).

Sunni arab states have recently invited musharraf for talks on pakistan’s contribution to the containment of iran. "It appears that the US has broached with Pakistan the issue of "help and assistance" in respect of its standoff with Iran. At any rate, the timing of Musharraf's tour of the pro-American Sunni Arab capitals Riyadh, Cairo and Amman last weekend was important. The hurriedly arranged tour followed consultations of the US secretaries of state and defense in Riyadh. In a rare gesture, King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia personally received Musharraf at the airport at Riyadh. Also, a grateful Saudi king conferred on Musharraf the "King Abdul Aziz Prize", Saudi Arabia's highest award. For some obscure reason, Musharraf has become the first-ever Pakistani leader to receive such an honor." (M K Bhadrakumar ‘US elevates Pakistan to regional kingpin’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/IA27Df02.html January 27, 2007). Another sudden and dramatic development is that, "Pakistan and NATO seem to have finalized their agreement establishing an institutionalized framework of cooperation." (M K Bhadrakumar ‘US elevates Pakistan to regional kingpin’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/IA27Df02.html January 27, 2007); "This week, the anti-Iranian alliance of Sunni-majority states stretched east to embrace Pakistan as that country's leader journeyed to the Egyptian beach resort of Sharm al-Sheikh for consultations with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak. President General Pervez Musharraf was coming from Riyadh, where he vowed to deepen defense and strategic ties with the Wahhabi kingdom. His trip, according to the Saudi-owned, Arabic-language news site Elaph, was intended to "expand the Sunni alliance that includes Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Turkey to include Pakistan as well in order to face the growing Iranian influence in the region"." (Iason Athanasiadis ‘Middle East's cold war heats up’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IA26Ak02.html January 26, 2007).

Adding to this flurry of diplomatic moves, the commander of nato forces in afghanistan, general david richards, seemingly drifted off into cloud cuckoo-land when he suddenly predicted it would take only a year to finish off an enemy that a mere few weeks earlier had been garnering support for a serious challenge to nato’s presence in the country. "The conditions are ripe for a complete victory," Richards claimed." (M K Bhadrakumar ‘US elevates Pakistan to regional kingpin’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/IA27Df02.html January 27, 2007).

Was it entirely coincidental then that the afghan parliament voted for reconciliation with the taliban despite the fact that the afghan government had previously been bitterly critical about pakistan’s role in the taliban’s resurgence and that president hamid karzai had been openly hostile towards musharraf when they met with president bush? "Conceivably, a significant step was taken by the Afghan Parliament when it approved on Wednesday the formation of a National Reconciliation Commission. Speaking in Parliament, the enigmatic veteran Wahhabi leader Abdul Rasul Sayyaf strongly urged dialogue with the Taliban. Sayyaf couldn't have spoken in a vacuum. In a checkered political life spanning four decades, he has kept links with Saudi Arabia, the ISI, the Taliban, the Northern Alliance and Karzai. Who precisely motivated him on Wednesday, it is not easy to tell." (M K Bhadrakumar ‘US elevates Pakistan to regional kingpin’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/IA27Df02.html January 27, 2007).

This analysis of afghanistan is drawn almost entirely from a dazzling article by m.k. bhadrakumar who raises a shocking issue – politely so, doubtlessly fearing ridicule for merely raising the question. "The million-dollar question for regional powers is whether the Taliban also will become "part of the solution.".(M K Bhadrakumar ‘US elevates Pakistan to regional kingpin’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/IA27Df02.html January 27, 2007). He has since received some support for his analysis. "The US is more than comfortable attributing to hardcore Sunni Saudi Arabia the role of key "axis of fear" player in the war of the US against Shi'ite Iran. Taliban-friendly Pakistan may soon join." (Pepe Escobar ‘The 'axis of fear' is born’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IB02Ak01.html February 02, 2007).

What these dramatic developments could be leading to is some sort of jewish-american-sunni tolerance of, or accommodation with, the taliban which has been ferociously demonized over the last six years. The taliban could help to confront iran’s allies - the northern alliance. Having been depicted for so many years as america’s arch enemy, the taliban could gradually be rebranded as america’s allies. Concomitantly, the war against terrorism would start morphing into a proxy zionist war against iran. After all those years of being denounced as terrorists suddenly the taliban are once again being seen as people with whom america could do business. These dramatic political maneuverings in pakistan and afghanistan make sense only as part of a jos and american strategy to encircle iran prior to a military attack.

Under these bizarre circumstances, general david richards’s prediction suddenly makes a degree of sense. It would indeed be easy for nato to make the taliban disappear if, tempted back into the mainstream of afghanistan political life by a combination of national reconciliation with drugs’ warlords, saudi largesse, and pressure from pakistan, the taliban rebranded itself as part of a jewish-american-sunni alliance against iran.

A major factor that might have helped paved the way for musharraf’s re-emergence as a secret american likudnik ally is america’s new rapport with china. For the last eighteen months or so, american likudniks had been promoting india, at pakistan’s expense, ostensibly to act as a counterweight to china although, in reality, primarily to undermine yet another moslem state, pakistan. Now that china is onside as far as un sanctions against iran are concerned, the american likudniks no longer need to rely as much as they did on india to curb pakistan. They are willing to sacrifice their abhorrence of pakistan and its islamic bomb for a temporary alliance with pakistan to help them to contain iran.

The Jos’s Accession to Nato.
Negotiations are currently being carried out concerning the jos’s accession to nato. .. "at a time when Israel's formal admission to NATO is under active discussion ..".(M K Bhadrakumar ‘US elevates Pakistan to regional kingpin’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/IA27Df02.html January 27, 2007). It will be an achievement of the first order if bush and blair manage to persuade nato to accept a government which is racist towards its own citizens and is pursuing a nazi lebensraum policy towards the palestinians. And yet with both bush and blair being financed by jewish lobbies the prospects for its admission look good. A jewish cabinet minister who advocates the forcible relocation of palestinian citizens of the jos, which is usually referred to today as ethnic cleansing, was warmly greeted recently by secretary of state condoleesa rice. "When Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice hastened to meet with Lieberman during her mid-January 2007 visit to Israel, a Haaretz editorial entitled "Down with Racism" commented: "Rice's meeting with Lieberman was like giving a stamp of approval to the racist policies he and his party have adopted."" (Ronald Bruce St. John ‘Of Walls and Bantustans. Apartheid By Any Other Name’ http://www.counterpunch.org/stjohn02022007.html February 2, 2007). That the bush regime is perfectly at ease with this jewish nazi seems to suggest there will be few problems accepting a racist state into the premier military organization defending what is, increasingly euphemistically, known as western civilization. That a blatantly racist society is acceptable to nato indicates clearly the political depravity of western civilization. Perhaps in the future we could look forward to nato troops helping to murder palestinians and perhaps helping to remove them to another country – perhaps madagascar – always a favourite with nazis. Who knows perhaps in the years to come the afghan military, drawn from former members of al quaeda and the taliban, could also be working for nato in the cause of jewish supremacism – what left wing anti-imperialist zionists laughably call the protection of western oil interests. If the jewish military becomes an integral part of nato then, on behalf of its jewish masters, nato will be inflicting birth pains on the middle east for the next century or more. Nato countries, under pressure from their domestic jewish lobbies, will be sacrificing their countries’ lives and treasure for the regional supremacy of the jos for generations to come.

America’s Unilateral Sanctions against Iran.
The first round of un sanctions against iran are insubstantial – more symbolic than consequential but, given the security council’s intention to periodically extend sanctions they will become more severe. In contrast, america’s unilateral sanctions against iran have much sharper teeth. America is the world’s military hyper-power, the engine of the world economy. It doesn’t hesitate to use its formidable financial and economic power to promote its global political policies. Putting aside for the moment the question of whether these policies are actually in america’s interests or not, there is no doubt that it has the economic clout to pressure most countries around the world into doing its bidding.

America first applied sanctions against iran after the islamic revolution in 1979 and the subsequent holding of american hostages. "The United States has applied a varied mix of economic sanctions on Iran since 1979, in a bid to reverse a host of Tehran's policies and, ultimately, bring about regime change. Clearly, the sanctions have not worked. And while the US has been busy tightening its screws, average Iranians have become more nationalistic and supportive of the mullahs." (Hossein Askari ‘Why sanctions on Iran will fail’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HI19Ak01.html September 19, 2006).

The jos had been a close ally of the shah of iran but even after he’d been overthrown the jos was much too worried about saddam hussein to adopt a hostile stance towards the new iranian regime. However, once saddam’s military threat to the jos had been neutralized, iran automatically emerged as its major rival in the middle east. As a consequence, as soon as the 1991 gulf war was over, jewish lobbies around the world but especially those in america began agitating for action to curb iran’s regional power.

In 1995 under pressure from america’s jewish lobby, the likudnik dominated american media, and the likudniks in the clinton administration, clinton sacrificed america’s geostrategic interests by banning its gigantic multi-national fossil fuel corporations from investing in iran’s energy industry. "Under Executive Order 12959, signed by President Clinton in 1995 and renewed by President Bush, all U.S. companies are barred from operating in Iran." (Michael T. Klare ‘Putting Iran in Great Power Context’ http://www.antiwar.com/engelhardt/?articleid=9150 June 16, 2006). The ban was opposed by richard cheney and by members of clinton’s own administration. "Mr. Indyk criticized the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act signed by President Clinton as "counterproductive." He said it had split America from its allies in Europe. The bill had been championed by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee." (Ira Stoll ‘‘Israel Lobby' Caused War in Iraq, September 11 Attacks, Professor Says’ http://www.nysun.com/pf.php?id=40629 September 29, 2006).

These sanctions were toughened up the following year. "Pressed by AIPAC and other pro-Israel forces, Clinton toughened up the policy in the spring of 1995 by imposing an economic embargo on Iran. But AIPAC et al wanted more. The result was the 1996 Iran and Libya Sanctions Act, which imposed sanctions on any foreign companies investing more than $40 million to develop petroleum resources in Iran or Libya. As Ze’ev Schiff, the military correspondent for Ha’aretz, noted at the time, "Israel is but a tiny element in the big scheme, but one should not conclude that it cannot influence those within the Beltway." (John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt ‘The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy’ rwp_06_011_walt.pdf March 2006 p.36). This act was authored solely by america’s jewish lobby for the sake of protecting the interests of the jos even though it meant sacrificing america’s energy companies and the american economy. As a result of this act american energy companies have lost out on billions of dollars of profits and american consumers have lost out on cheaper oil.

The jewish lobby forced america to make even greater economic sacrifices for the jos when it used another law to apply further sanctions on iran. The bush regime imposed sanctions "under a 2000 arms proliferation law that was renamed Iran and Syria Nonproliferation Act in 2005. The sanctions ban U.S. government business and support to the companies for two years and block U.S. firms from selling them items that require export licenses. They are largely symbolic, but U.S. officials have been effective in publicly singling out companies that are engaged in selling arms to rogue states. The Bush administration has imposed sanctions more than 40 times since 2001 as part of a more aggressive push to stop arms transfers to rogue states or unstable regions of the world. The law requires the imposition of sanctions on companies, governments and people caught transferring missiles, weapons of mass destruction materials or advanced conventional arms to Iran or Syria." (Bill Gertz ‘Sanctions imposed on Iran, Syria arms suppliers’ http://washtimes.com/national/20070104-112337-4050r.htm January 5, 2007); "This phase of pressure was marked by increased activity directed at Congress. An "Iran Freedom Support Act" was introduced in the House and Senate in January and February of 2005. Neoconservatives and individuals linked to the defense contracting industry formed an Iran Policy Committee, and in April and May presented briefings in support of MEK before the newly-created Iran Human Rights and Democracy Caucus of the House of Representatives." (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).

This nonproliferation act enabled the likudniks within the bush regime to impose trade sanctions on a couple of russian companies. "The United States had already imposed similar sanctions on Rosoboroneksport and Russian plane maker Sukhoi in August 2006 for providing Iran with material that Washington said could be used to make weapons of mass destruction." (Russia says US sanctions on arms dealers 'illegal'’ http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070106/wl_afp/russiausiransyria_070106202640 January 06, 2007).

Although both china and russia agreed to support the bush regime’s demand for un sanctions against iran, bush still slapped additional unilateral sanctions on their companies. "The Bush administration is imposing economic sanctions on Chinese, Russian and North Korean companies for selling missiles and weapons goods to Iran and Syria, administration officials said. The sanctions were imposed earlier this week on three Chinese state-run companies, three Russian firms and a North Korean mining company under a 2000 arms proliferation law that was renamed Iran and Syria Nonproliferation Act in 2005." (Bill Gertz ‘Sanctions imposed on Iran, Syria arms suppliers’ http://washtimes.com/national/20070104-112337-4050r.htm January 5, 2007); "Russia's state-run arms exporter Rosoboroneksport was among the highest profile firms hit by the measures, imposed under the US 2005 Iran and Syria Nonproliferation Act." (‘Russia says US sanctions on arms dealers 'illegal'’ http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070106/wl_afp/russiausiransyria_070106202640 January 06, 2007).

America’s unilateral sanctions might be hurting chinese, russian, and north korean, companies but they are also punishing american companies and the american economy. Yet again the likudnik bush regime is sacrificing american companies for the sake of appeasing its jewish masters. "Ultimately, all these decisions constitute an internal problem for the American authorities," the Russian foreign ministry said on Saturday. "The American state is forbidding itself and American companies from cooperating with our leading businesses. In business terms, that means wasted opportunities," the ministry said." (Russia says US sanctions on arms dealers 'illegal'’ http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070106/wl_afp/russiausiransyria_070106202640 January 06, 2007).

The bush regime has also started using its financial clout to force the world’s banks to curb financial transactions with iran. "The efforts by the United States and its allies over the last few months to persuade international banks and oil companies to pull out of Iran threaten dozens of projects, including development of Iran's two massive new oil fields that could expand output by 800,000 barrels a day over the next four years." (Kim Murphy ‘U.S. puts squeeze on Iran's oil fields’ http://fairuse.100webcustomers.com/fairenough/latimes716.html January 7, 2007).

It has forced japan to forego investments in iran. "One of them is reportedly the giant Azadegan oil field in southwestern Iran near the Iraqi border. Japan's INPEX Holdings Inc. in October pulled out of all but a 10% stake in the $2-billion project under U.S. pressure, and alternative financing from foreign banks has failed to materialize, said one source with close connections to the Iranian Oil Ministry. "It has been very effective. Nobody is prepared to loan Iran anything on anything," said Fereidun Fesharaki, an energy advisor to the Iranian prime minister in the 1970s who now heads the FACTS Inc. petroleum consulting firm in Honolulu." (Kim Murphy ‘U.S. puts squeeze on Iran's oil fields’ http://fairuse.100webcustomers.com/fairenough/latimes716.html January 7, 2007).

The penalties for breaking likudnik american sanctions against iran are severe. "The US has imposed unilateral sanctions on Iran - because of its alleged support for international terrorism - and individuals found to have breached the economic restrictions face a fine of up to $250,000 (£126,000) and 20 years in jail." (Andrew Murray-Watson ‘US tells banks to shut down Iran operations’ http://news.independent.co.uk/business/news/article2034764.ece December 03, 2006).

The final tactic in the likudnik’s arsenal of sanctions against iran is using america’s justice department to reactivate previously overlooked infringements of america’s sanctions laws against iran. "That is the message Washington is trying to reinforce. For years, U.S. sanctions prohibited investments of more than $20 million in Iran's oil industry, but in practice, they were applied only to U.S.-based oil companies. But as the nuclear showdown has unfolded, and as it became clear the U.N. sanctions would not impose serious economic penalties on Iran, Bush administration officials decided on a different tack. Envoys from the Treasury Department have approached international banks and companies, reminding them of Iran's record of financing militant Islamic organizations such as Hamas, in the Palestinian territories, and Hezbollah, in Lebanon, through the banking system and its defiance of U.N. resolutions on nonproliferation, and warning that investing in such a country may not be a good business risk. Simultaneously, the Justice Department reportedly has opened investigations of several banks to determine whether investments in Iran violated U.S. sanctions laws. In late 2005, Dutch bank ABN Amro agreed to pay $80 million in fines stemming in part from improper transactions with Iran through its subsidiary in Dubai, United Arab Emirates. UBS Bank and Credit Suisse of Switzerland recently announced they were suspending most new business with Iran, and British-based HSBC said it would no longer accept dollar transactions from within Iran. "Banks are constantly doing risk assessments about what kind of business they want to be involved in," Stuart Levey, Treasury undersecretary for terrorism and financial intelligence, said in a telephone interview." (Kim Murphy ‘U.S. puts squeeze on Iran's oil fields’ http://fairuse.100webcustomers.com/fairenough/latimes716.html January 7, 2007).