Friday, May 6

A Look at the Man behind the Curtain?

Anyone interested in the role Israel is currently playing in the War in Iraq should read the above linked article. A summary snippet is below:
Still, in the "Clean Break," neocons were advising Israeli military action. It should be emphasized that the same people — Feith, Wurmser, Perle — who advised the Israeli government on issues of national security would also advise the George W. Bush administration to pursue virtually the same policy regarding the Middle East, but employing American armed forces. As political observer William James Martin would astutely comment about "Clean Break": "This document is remarkable for its very existence because it constitutes a policy manifesto for the Israeli government penned by members of the current U.S. government." Martin went on to point out that the similarity between that document's recommendation for Israel and the neocon-inspired Bush administration policy, purportedly designed for the benefit of American interests, was even more remarkable:

It is amazing how much of this program, though written for the Israeli government of Netanyahu of 1996, has already been implemented, not by the government of Israel, but by the Bush administration. The overthrow of Saddam Hussein in Iraq, the two-year-old house arrest of Arafat and the attempt to cultivate a new Palestinian leadership, the complete rejection by Sharon of the land for peace agreement on the Golan Heights, with little U.S. demurral, and the bombing inside of "Syria proper" with only the response from Bush, "Israel has a right to defend itself."

The dramatic similarities between the "Clean Break" scenario and actual Bush II administration Middle East policy are evident not only in the results but also in the sequence of events. Notably, the "Clean Break" report held that removing Saddam was the key to weakening Israel's other enemies; and after removing Saddam in 2003 the United States would indeed quickly threaten Iran and Syria, and talk of restructuring the entire Middle East. Evident, too, is a similarity between actual events and the Yinon proposal of 1982, which also saw regime change in Iraq as a fundamental move in destabilizing Israel's enemies.

To reiterate the central point of this essay: the vision of "regime change" in the Middle East through external, militant action originated in Israel, and its sole purpose was to advance the strategic interests of Israel. It had nothing to do with bringing "democracy" to Muslims. It had nothing to do with any terrorist threat to the United States. Those latter arguments accreted to the idea of regime change as the primary military actor changed from Israel to the United States. But the Israeli government would continue to be a fundamental supporter of the regional military action, even as the ostensible justifications for action changed. The Sharon government advocated the American attacks on Iraq and has preached the necessity of strikes on Iran.

It would appear that for Ariel Sharon during the Bush II administration, the strategic benefits that would accrue to Israel from such a militant restructuring of the Middle East were the same as those that Likudniks sought in the 1980s. But unlike Begin's failed incursion into Lebanon in 1982, the Bush II effort not only relied upon the much greater power of the United States but also was wrapped in a cover of "democracy" and American national interest, effectively masking the true objective of Israeli hegemony. That helps to explain the much greater success of this intervention, which has come at no cost to Israel.
It is recommended to read the whole article, which details the transformation of American foreign policy via the neoconservative proxies. Israel's objectives of becoming a regional superpower are carefully masked under the public relations image of a nation of a persecuted people just struggling to stay alive amidst hostile neighbours. It is the viciousness of the Mossad and other Israeli covert operations that have enabled the nation to influence the highest levels of power within the United States. The agenda of destabilisation is definitely underway - Iraq is growing less and less stable by the week, contrary to the Western media's praise and hyperbole of Bush bringing "Freedom and Democracy" to Iraq.

If this mob of crooks try to take out Iran, they may find it a little more difficult than Iraq. Unfortunately, whether they succeed or fail, it will once again be the innocents who suffer unnecessarily when they are shredded by US airstrikes and cluster bombs.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thanks for bringing this article to public attention: it is certainly in line with all that one has grown to realise concerning the sinister hold (and the covert operations that allow the grip to be so tight) that Israel holds over successive US administrations, Bush II being the most extreme example.

7/21/2007 3:56 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I just found the website who discuss about
home business opportunity

If you want to know more here it is
home based business reviews

1/20/2010 3:56 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home