Obama Buys False Iran Narrative

President Obama has fallen into the habit of accepting whatever “group think” is prevalent in Official Washington, which often falsely accuses some “enemy” of a nefarious deed, but Obama then tries to dodge the desired reaction: war. This risky pattern is playing out again over Iran, writes Gareth Porter.

By Gareth Porter

I’m glad that the United States and Iran reached an agreement in Vienna after nearly two years of negotiations and 35 years of enmity. A failure to do so under present political conditions would certainly have left a festering conflict with unpredictably bad consequences. And the successful negotiation of such a far-reaching agreement in which both sides made significant concessions should help to moderate the extreme hostility that has been building up in the United States over the years.

But my enthusiasm for the agreement is tempered by the fact that the U.S. political process surrounding the Congressional consideration of the agreement is going to have the opposite effect. And a big part of the problem is that the Obama administration is not going to do anything to refute the extremist view of Iran as determined to get nuclear weapons. Instead the administration is integrating the idea of Iran as rogue nuclear state into its messaging on the agreement.

An Iranian man holding a photo of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. (Iranian government photo)

An Iranian man holding a photo of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. (Iranian government photo)

Secretary of State John Kerry’s testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Thursday makes the administration’s political strategy very clear. In two sentences, Kerry managed to combine the images of Iranian-supported terrorism and sectarian violence across the entire region and Iranian determination to get nuclear weapons.

He told the Committee about the administration’s plans to “push back against Iran’s other activities – against terrorism support, its contribution to sectarian violence in the Middle East,” which he called “unacceptable.” Then he added: “But pushing back against an Iran with nuclear weapons is very different from pushing back against Iran without one.”

The administration’s determination to be just as alarmist about Iran’s alleged nuclear ambitions as its opponents creates a U.S. political discourse on the Iran nuclear issue built around two dueling narratives that disagree about the effect of the agreement but have one politically crucial common denominator:  they both hold it as beyond debate that Iran cannot be trusted because it wants nuclear weapons; and the only question is whether and for how long that Iranian quest for nuclear weapons can be held off without war.

The Israeli line is that the agreement is merely a temporary lull, and that it will simply embolden Iran to plan for a bomb once the agreement expires ten years hence. But for the administration’s tough-minded diplomatic efforts, Iran would have continued advancing towards getting a nuclear weapon, and that the only alternative to the agreement is war with Iran.

The common assumption about Iran’s nuclear policy is never debated or even discussed because it is so firmly entrenched in the political discourse by now that there is no need to discuss it.  The choice between two hard-line views of Iran is hardly coincidental. The Obama administration accepted from day one the narrative about the Iranian nuclear program that the Israelis and their American allies had crafted during the Bush administration.

The Bush administration’s narrative, adopted after the invasion of Iraq, described a covert nuclear program run by Iran for two decades, the main purpose of which was to serve as a cover for a secret nuclear weapons program.

Undersecretary of State John Bolton and Vice-President Dick Cheney, who were managing the policy, cleverly used leaks to the New York Times and Wall Street Journal in 2005 to introduce into the domestic political discussion alleged evidence from a collection of documents of then unknown provenance that Iran had a secret nuclear weapons research program from 2001 to 2003.

The administration also passed the documents on to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in 2005, as part of a Bush strategy aimed to take Iran to the United Nations Security Council on the charge of violating its commitments to the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Bolton and Cheney were working with Israel to create a justification for regime change in Iran based on the idea that Iran was working on nuclear weapons under the cover of its nuclear program.

The entire Bush-Israeli narrative was false, however. It ignored or suppressed fundamental historical facts that contradicted it as this writer found from deeper research on the issue:

–Iran was the one state in the entire world that had a history of abjuring weapons of mass destruction on religious grounds.  During the Iran-Iraq war the military leadership had asked Ayatollah Khomeini to approve the manufacture of chemical weapons to retaliate against repeated chemical attacks by Iraqi forces. But Khomeini forbade their possession or use forbidden by the Shia interpretation of the Quran and Shia jurisprudence.

–Iran had begun to pursue uranium enrichment in the mid-1980s only after the Reagan administration had declared publicly that it would prevent Iran from relying on an international consortium in France to provide nuclear fuel for the Bushehr reactor.

–Iran did not inform the IAEA about its acquisition of enrichment technology, its experiments with centrifuges and laser enrichment or its first enrichment facility because of the continued U.S. attempt to suppress the Iranian nuclear program. Releasing such information would have made it easier for the United States to prevent continued procurement of necessary parts and material and to pressure China to end all nuclear cooperation with Iran.

–The U.S. intelligence community found no hard evidence, either from human intelligence or other forms of intelligence, of an Iranian nuclear weapons program. U.S. national intelligence estimates during the Bush administration concluding that Iran had run such a program, including the most famous estimate issued in November 2007, were based on inference, not on hard intelligence. That fact stood in sharp contrast to the very unambiguous human and electronic intelligence the CIA had been able to obtain on covert nuclear weapons programs in Israel, India, Pakistan, South Africa and South Korea.

Barack Obama came to the White House with a highly critical view of Bush policy towards both Iran and Iraq and was publicly committed to diplomatic engagement with Iran. But his administration’s acceptance of the Bush line that Iran was a nuclear outlaw can be explained by the continuity of policy that the national security bureaucracy generally maintains in the transition from one administration to another, with rare exceptions.

Bureaucracies create the “facts” about any particular issue that support their interests. Defining the Iranian nuclear threat as a threat to proliferate was clearly in the interests of the counter-proliferation offices in the White House, State Department, and CIA, which wielded strong influence over the issue within their respective institutions.

The senior officials on Obama’s transition team and his initial national security team, moreover, had been closely associated with different versions of the policy of treating Iran as nuclear rogue state in previous administrations.

As Secretary of Defense in the Bush administration, Robert Gates had catered to the interests of the Congressional-military-industrial alliance behind a missile defense program in the United States, which had required an alarmist definition of threat from Iran’s missile and nuclear programs.

Tom Donilon and Wendy Sherman, who had presided over Obama’s State Department transition, were both protégés of the Clinton administration’s Secretary of State Warren Christopher, who was an ardent proponent of demonizing Iran. It should be of no surprise that Donilon said in 2011 that Iran had “a record of deceit and deception,” and that Sherman declared in Congressional testimony in 2013 that Iran couldn’t be trusted because “We know that deception is part of the DNA.”

Secretary Kerry and other Obama administration officials may have moderated their views of the Iran’s nuclear program over the course of negotiations, but the external and domestic pressures for an even tougher line toward Iran have clearly outweighed any such learning process on the issue.

If it isn’t changed dramatically from Kerry’s testimony, the administration’s choice of political strategy will certainly contribute to a domestic political atmosphere in which even the most limited steps toward greater cooperation with Iran are all but impossible for years to come.

Gareth Porter is an independent investigative journalist and winner of the 2012 Gellhorn Prize for journalism. He is the author of the newly published Manufactured Crisis: The Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare. [This story first appeared at Middle East Eye. http://www.middleeasteye.net/columns/obama-s-line-iran-nuclear-deal-second-false-narrative-1257324710#sthash.KrTd3X84.dpuf]

47 comments for “Obama Buys False Iran Narrative

  1. Abe
    July 28, 2015 at 14:46

    Obama may be buying, but Israel has been having a hard time selling its false narratives to many Jewish people around the world.

    A 2015 report is titled “Jewish Values and Israel’s Use of Force in Armed Conflict: Perspectives from World Jewry”

    The report is published by the Jewish People Policy Institute (JPPI), a think tank supported by Israel lobby groups that works with the Israeli government to bolster Jewish support for Israel and Zionism.

    The JPPI report called attention to the “growing difficulty that many Jews have understanding Israel’s long-term policy – which they see as contributing to, if not actually creating, the need to engage in repeated violent confrontations with its neighbors.”

    The report recommended more “effective hasbara (public relations) vis-a-vis the Jewish communities” in an effort to convince them that Israel wants “peace.”

    JPPI is co-chaired by Stuart Eizenstat, a longtime US government official who now serves as the State Department’s “Special Adviser to the Secretary on Holocaust Issues,” and Israel lobby stalwart Dennis Ross.

    Ross was one of the principal authors of presidential candidate Barack Obama’s address on the Middle East to AIPAC in June 2008. He was appointed Special Advisor for the Persian Gulf and Southwest Asia to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in February 2009. In June 2009, the White House announced that Ross was leaving the State Department to join the National Security Council staff as a Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for the Central Region, with overall responsibility for the Middle East, the Persian Gulf, Afghanistan, Pakistan and South Asia.

    Well-known neoconservative ideologue Elliott Abrams is a prominent member of the Board of JPPI. Abrams was a key figure in the Ronald Reagan administration before being convicted (and later pardoned) of charges related to the Iran-Contra scandal. A senior fellow for Middle East studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, he encouraged U.S. intervention and promoted a right-wing Israel-centric agenda. A key adviser on Mideast policy at the National Security Council (NSC) during the George W. Bush presidency, Abrams was a leading proponent of pursuing an aggressive “war on terror” after the 9/11 attacks. Abrams has also been a fervent supporter of launching strikes on Syria.

  2. F. G. Sanford
    July 28, 2015 at 14:40

    Here’s the deal: Kerry is the “Skull and Bones” guy, and The President is widely believed to have a CIA pedigree. The Intelligence Community (Except for Fred Fleitz) is 100% supportive of the deal; based on NIE reports, Iran is clean. James Clapper recently reported to Congress on “State Sponsors of Terrorism”; Iran was not on the list. That the agreement was achieved means it’s what the “deep state” wanted. Last but not least, due to the Treaty Clause of The Constitution, the United States is, as a signatory to the UN Charter, bound to the agreement. If the agreement is not ratified, the only option is unilateral sanctions, which won’t mean much. Anybody who believes AIPAC can trump (no pun intended) the “deep state” is sorely mistaken, unless their goals happen to converge. And, that fingerprint in the book depository? Sorry, but the only certified latent print analyst to evaluate it says it doesn’t belong to Mac Wallace.

    • Abe
      July 28, 2015 at 14:54

      Netanyahu’s spokespeople said he plans to “kill himself” pursuing the last remaining option for scuttling the deal – preventing its ratification by the U.S. House of Representatives – by persuading Democratic congressmen to defect to the Republican camp and vote against their president. http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/1.666048

      One can only hope.

  3. Anonymous
    July 28, 2015 at 01:26

    Off topic (this concerns Malaysia 17)…

    Needed to share this:


    • Abe
      July 28, 2015 at 13:08

      The Fort Russ article is a translation July 26 blog report is by Russian journalist and military expert Igor Korotchenko, chief editor of National Defense Magazine and director of the Center for Analysis of World Arms Trade.

      Korotchenko references a July 26 article on the website of REN TV, one of the largest private federal TV channels in Russia http://ren.tv/novosti/2015-07-26/smi-ukrainskie-siloviki-priznalis-chto-mogli-sbit-malayziyskiy-boing

      According to the REN TV article, unspecified “local media”” cited an “anonymous source in the Armed Forces of Ukraine”. The source claimed that a Ukrainian Buk missile crew accidentally fired a missile on July 17, 2014 while two Ukrainian Su-25 were conducting aerial reconnaissance in the region.

      The anonymous source claimed that the Security Service of Ukraine arrested the commander and crew of the missile battery “that evening”.

      The allegations of the article generally conform to the scenario outlined during the July 21, 2014 Russian Ministry of Defense briefing on MH-17.

    • Abe
      July 28, 2015 at 13:12

      The Fort Russ article presents a translation of the July 26 blog report by Russian journalist and military expert Igor Korotchenko.

      Korotchenko is chief editor of National Defense Magazine and director of the Center for Analysis of World Arms Trade.

      Korotchenko refers to a July 26 article on the website of REN TV, one of the largest private federal TV channels in Russia http://ren.tv/novosti/2015-07-26/smi-ukrainskie-siloviki-priznalis-chto-mogli-sbit-malayziyskiy-boing

      According to the REN TV article, unspecified “local media” cited an “anonymous source in the Armed Forces of Ukraine”.

      The anonymous source claimed that a Ukrainian Buk missile crew accidentally fired a missile on July 17, 2014 while two Ukrainian Su-25 were conducting aerial reconnaissance in the region.

      The anonymous source also claimed that the Security Service of Ukraine arrested the commander and crew of the missile battery “that evening”.

      The allegations of the article generally conform to the scenario outlined during the July 21, 2014 Russian Ministry of Defense briefing on MH-17.

  4. Abe
    July 28, 2015 at 00:47

    67.8% of respondents to a Google Consumer Survey said Israel should receive no compensation for the US finalizing a deal with Iran over its civilian nuclear program, which was begun at the behest of the US when Washington’s puppet, the Shah, one of the world’s worst human rights violators, ruled over Iran.

    Obama is currently offering Israel increased aid to compensate for the agreement. Israel is the biggest recipient of US aid at over $3 billion per year, and Obama has increased aid to Israel after each of Israel’s major massacres in the Gaza refugee camp since Obama assumed power.


    The US and Israel have both continued to make threats of force, criminal acts under the UN charter adopted by both countries, against Iran since the agreement, and Obama’s anti-democratic offering of increased aid to Israel could possibly signal that the “leave it to Bibi” strategy is still being entertained, along with any number of other goals.

    Poll: Overwhelming US Majority Says Israel Should Receive No Aid Boost due to US / Iran “Deal”
    By Robert Barsocchini

  5. Abe
    July 28, 2015 at 00:24

    Friends with benefits:

    US Aid To Israel – The Real Deal

  6. Abe
    July 28, 2015 at 00:18

    Speaking of false narratives:

    Is Israel America’s greatest ally?

    • Abe
      July 28, 2015 at 00:29


      Evangelical pastor John Hagee, the leader of Christians United for Israel (CUFI), the US’ largest pro-Israel organization, with over two million members, adamantly reassured critics that his Christian Zionism is rooted in the idea that Jews who do not accept Jesus will be doomed to suffer in hellfire.

      Hagee is a raging anti-Semite and Holocaust revisionist who called Hitler a “half-breed Jew” and who blames anti-Semitism on Jews. He is also a close ally of right-wing Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Israeli Ambassador to the US Ron Dermer, both of whom have spoken glowingly of CUFI at its annual summits.

      As I wrote before:

      Hagee, who thinks we are the last generation of humans, is no stranger to controversy. In late 2014, he claimed that Ebola (along with the civil rights protests in Ferguson and elsewhere) was God’s way of “punishing” America, because Obama was trying to “divide” Israel.

      The pastor has even gone so far as to essentially defend Adolf Hitler. In a 2005 sermon, Hagee asserted that God sent Hitler as a “hunter,” in order to “hunt them [Jews] from every mountain and from every hill and out of the holes of the rocks … to get them to come back to the land of Israel.”

      Once again, these are the views of the leader of, in CUFI’s own words, “the largest pro-Israel organization in the United States with over two million members and one of the leading Christian grassroots movements in the world.”

      The Washington Post indicates that CUFI “can boast that it has members from every congressional district in America.” Foreign Policy included John Hagee in its list of the 50 Republicans with the most influence on foreign policy. The evangelical Christian Zionist was a much sought-after figure by the Republican Party in the 2008 presidential election. He ended up endorsing John McCain.

      Christian Zionists expose their anti-Semitism at conservative summit in Iowa
      By Ben Norton

  7. Abe
    July 27, 2015 at 23:59

    Most Americans have no idea of how close we came to making war on Iran in 2008, the last year of the Bush/Cheney administration. Nor do they know of the essential role played by courageous managers of intelligence who, for the first time on the Iran nuclear issue, supervised a strictly evidence-based, from-the-bottom-up National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) that concluded in November 2007 that Iran had stopped working on a nuclear weapon at the end of 2003 and had not resumed that work. That key judgment issued unanimously and “with high confidence” by all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies played a huge role in strengthening the hand of Mike Mullen, then-chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and other reasonable national security leaders in dissuading President Bush from following Vice President Cheney’s prompting to launch a war that would have made the war in Iraq look like a volleyball match between the Quaker School and Ursuline Academy.

    The juggernaut toward war with Iran was already rolling downhill. Recall that then-CENTCOM commander Adm. William Fallon was abruptly cashiered after saying “we’re not going to do Iran on my watch.” And Mr. Cheney later admitted churlishly that Mr. Bush had been a big disappointment in giving in to intelligence and military officials on Iran.

    In Mr. Bush’s memoir “Decision Points,” he complains bitterly that the NIE “tied my hands on the military side. … After the NIE, how could I possibly explain using the military to destroy the nuclear facilities of a country the intelligence community said had no active nuclear weapons program?”

    The wider lesson here is that, with managers with integrity, analysts freed to follow the evidence wherever it leads, and all manner of technical means of intelligence collection available, unnecessary wars can be prevented and arms control agreements can be effectively monitored.

    Is the ‘Military Option’ on Iran Off the Table?
    By Ray McGovern

  8. Abe
    July 27, 2015 at 23:52

    “I know what America is.
    America is a thing you can move very easily, move it in the right direction.”
    — Binyamin Netanyahu (2001)

  9. Abe
    July 27, 2015 at 22:45

    Critics of the Iran deal like Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-Texas) insist that the deal with Iran endangers U.S. security.

    At the behest of AIPAC, Coryn and 57 other Senators co-sponsored the bill S. 1881: Nuclear Weapon Free Act of 2013, expressing the intent that if Israel takes military action in “self-defense” against Iran’s “nuclear weapons program” the United States should provide Israel with diplomatic, military, and economic support.

    55 of the 58 Senators who are co-sponsors of this pro-war bill have received money from AIPAC totaling $7.3 million (2007-2012). 39 non-sponsors have received AIPAC money too, their total being $5.4 million.

    Faithfully parroting the Israeli line, Coryn said the deal “jeopardizes American security and paves the way for a nuclear-armed Iran.”

    In reality, Israel has no concern for American security.

    The most damaging case of Israeli espionage was the Jonathan Pollard spy case

    Pollard, a Jewish American, established a career as a civilian intelligence analyst for the US Navy.

    In 1981, Israel recruited Pollard as a spy to acquire American intelligence satellite photos.

    Pollard stole massive amounts of intelligence information, including classified documents relating to the US Nuclear Deterrent relative to the USSR, and sent them to Israel.

    According to sources in the US State Department, Israel then turned around and traded those stolen nuclear secrets to the USSR in exchange for increased emigration quotas from the USSR to Israel.

    Other information that found its way from the US to Israel to the USSR resulted in the loss of American agents operating inside the USSR. Casper Weinberger, in his affidavit opposing a reduced sentence for Pollard, described the damage done to the United States thus, “[It is] difficult to conceive of a greater harm to national security than that caused by… Pollard’s treasonous behavior.”

    The United States’ nuclear deterrent cost an estimated five trillion taxpayer dollars during the 50s and 60s to build and maintain, and less than $100,000 for Pollard to undermine.

    Israel waited 13 years to admit Pollard had been spying for them, and now lobbies for his release, having granted him Israeli citizenship.

    In May 1998, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu finally admitted that Pollard was an Israeli agent, and that he had been handled by high-ranking officials of the Israeli Bureau for Scientific Relations (Lekem). The Israeli government paid for the services of at least two of Pollard’s trial attorneys – Richard A. Hibey and Hamilton Philip Fox III – and continued to petition for his release.

    During campaigning leading up to the 1999 Israeli general election, Netanyahu and his challenger Ehud Barak exchanged barbs in the media over which had been more supportive of Pollard.

    In 2002 Netanyahu personally visited Pollard at FCI Butner Medium at the Butner Federal Correction Complex in North Carolina. Accompanied by Pollard’s wife, Esther, he with Pollard for just over two hours.

    The Pollard case is just one example of Israel’s profound regard for American security.

    • Abe
      July 28, 2015 at 15:45

      Israeli spy Jonathan Pollard to be released on November 21, 2015, exactly 30 years after his arrest.

      Pollard, 60, is the only American ever sentenced to life in prison for spying on behalf of a U.S. ally.

      The White House insisted that there was no link between Pollard’s release and the Iran deal or any other foreign policy matter.

  10. Mortimer
    July 27, 2015 at 22:01

    FALSE NARRATIVE = Stop and Frisk is strictly urban USA Police Practice…

    REPORT CATAGORY = Mutually Entwined Methods of intimidation & control…

    Journal: When Walking Becomes a Crime
    ( AKA walking while black or brown )

    July 15, 2015
    by Peter Cunliffe –

    Last night, at around 11:30 PM, we received a call from one of our Palestinian neighbors about an incident that was unfolding outside our window.

    A group of five Israeli soldiers were guarding two Palestinian youth, who did not look to be older than fifteen. The kids were sitting on concrete steps, and the soldiers had them surrounded, so they could not get away.

    The boys were detained around 11:15, according to our neighbor.

    As is our policy, we observed for a few minutes, and then tried to talk to the kids. One of the first things we do when Palestinians are being detained by soldiers is ask them (the Palestinians) if they are OK with us taking photos and video. The answer is almost always yes, but we always ask first.

    Taking photos and videos has two purposes. The first is to document what is happening. The second is to let the soldiers know they are being observed. This sometimes leads to people being released more quickly, and the soldiers being less rough than would be the case if no one was filming.

    The boys gave consent for us to take photos, and we started to ask them for their names, when the soldiers angrily told us to go away and physically forced us to move back. We kept asking them why the boys were being detained. What had they done?

    One of the soldiers, who seemed to be the commander, and who we have had run-ins with before, told us he does not have justify to us what he and his men are doing. Another soldier, however, who seemed to be younger and less experienced, told us the truth… the boys did not have their ID with them. The reason they were stopped and made to sit down and surrounded by heavily armed troops was that they did not have in their possession the papers that every Palestinian needs to have on them, if he or she hopes to not be harassed by the army. I asked the soldier if this was the only reason, he said there was another one, but refused to say what it was.

    We kept trying to talk to the boys, and the soldiers kept pushing us away. Eventually their father came, and after some discussions with them, he showed them the boys’ papers. It was only after this that they let them go, one by one. The incident took more than one hour.

    Imagine living in a place where armed men can stop you and hold you- and if they feel necessary, confine you in a jail- simply because you don’t have a document on you that can tell them at a glance your first and last name, where you live, where you are from, and what religion you follow.

    Palestinians are obliged to carry such ID on them at all times. Any Israeli soldier or police officer can randomly stop them, and demand to see it. If they don’t have it, things can turn ugly.

    The boys who were detained were not threatening anyone. They were not carrying out a suicide bombing. They aren’t terrorists. They were not even throwing rocks, which the military often uses as an excuse to do detain, arrest, beat, or even kill Palestinians.

    They were simply going for a walk, and some guys in uniforms thought they looked suspicious. A piece or two of forgotten ID led to an hour of stress and intimidation, and could have ended with arrests and possibly worse behind the closed doors of a police station or military base. The only crime these teens were guilty of was being Palestinian, and going for a walk.

    Fortunately, their ordeal ended in a lot better way than experiences of others, who face similar situations on a regular basis in this city, and all parts of the West Bank which are under Israeli military rule.

  11. Wm. Boyce
    July 27, 2015 at 21:58

    “… if the mainstream news networks came out tomorrow and discussed the truth about how some Jews view Israel’s policies, methods and actions…”

    The latest example I saw was the AP obit of singer/actor Theodore Bikel, who was a diehard leftist and Zionist at the same time. In an interview with Amy Goodman from last year, he said that he didn’t support a boycott of Israel in general, but he certainly supported a boycott of any goods coming from the Occupied Territories and voiced his general opposition to the occupation. None of this made it into the AP obit, you’d never know.

  12. Andrew Nichols
    July 27, 2015 at 19:42

    I’m glad that the United States and Iran reached an agreement in Vienna after nearly two years of negotiations and 35 years of enmity.

    It seems you’ve bought into a key narrative too. The agreement was not a US Iran agrrement but between a body known as P5 + 1 (presumably the “1” is the rogue state USA) and Iran.

    I have a feeling that we are a a crucial point in ME history where it will no longer matter what the Israeli owned US Govt does wrt this agreement, the P5 will ignore it and open the business floodgates. If the US congress and senate do create an anti agreement supermajority and reject the agrrement, Europe in particular will see that for the first time as an unignorable breach of trust and the shaky US ME leadership will be shattered forever.

  13. Joe Tedesky
    July 27, 2015 at 19:22

    In case you are seeing these TV commercials sponsored by ‘Citizens for a Nuclear Free Iran’ I will save you some time and provide you with the link;


    If any of you know of a counter response to this group, please post the link, so we may get a fair and balanced prospective.

    • Abe
      July 27, 2015 at 23:39

      AIPAC, the pro-Israel organization, launched Citizens for a Nuclear Free Iran (CNFI).

      The group’s advisory board includes Joseph Lieberman, a former senior Member of the Senate Armed Services Committee and one of the strongest backers of Israel on Capitol Hill.

      In 2002, Lieberman sponsored a pro-Israel U.S. Senate Resolution (S. Res. 247) regarding the Middle East Conflict, “expressing solidarity with Israel in its constant efforts to fight against terror”.

      In 2006, The Center for Responsive Politics ranked Lieberman fourth on the list of candidates who received money from pro-Israel Political Action Committees (PACs). Mark Vogel, chairman of the pro-Israel National Action Committee Political Action Committee (NACPAC), stated that “Joe Lieberman, without exception, no conditions … is the No. 1 pro-Israel advocate and leader in Congress. There is nobody who does more on behalf of Israel than Joe Lieberman. That is why he is incredibly important to the pro-Israel community.”

      In July 2008, Lieberman spoke at the annual conference of Christians United for Israel (CUFI) then later, in July 2009, accepted from John Hagee CUFI’s “Defender of Israel Award”. Pastor Hagee, CUFI’s founder and leader, has made a number of controversial remarks, including a statement that the Catholic Church is “the great whore” and a suggestion that God sent Adolf Hitler to bring the Jews to Israel.

      Lieberman had been a vocal supporter in Congress for U.S. aerial attacks on Iran.

      The Institute for Policy Studies described Lieberman’s position:

      Lieberman was also among Congress’s most strident hardliners regarding Iran, pushing through new sanctions measures and advocating for an aggressive U.S. posture. In comments made at the neoconservative Foreign Policy Initiative shortly after the 2010 midterm elections, Lieberman asserted that Congress would pressure the Obama administration for more sanctions against Tehran and possibly military action. Arguing that he was skeptical that economic sanctions could prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon, Lieberman contended there was “broad bipartisan base of support” for taking military action again Iran.

      In April 2006, Lieberman became the first prominent Democrat to announce his support for preemptive attacks against Iran to stop it from developing nuclear weapons. In an April 2006 interview with the Jerusalem Post, Lieberman said the aim of air strikes would be “to delay [the nuclear program] to deter it hoping that you set the program off course so that by the time they catch up back to where they were there’s been a change in government. That’s the limited objective that I would see.”


  14. Abe
    July 27, 2015 at 16:36

    Days after the announcement of the Iran nuclear deal, Dan Cohen, an independent journalist based in Palestine, set out in West Jerusalem’s Yafo Street to find out what Israelis thought about the agreement.

    The range of responses reflected the continuous right-ward shift and the complete militarization of Jewish Israeli society against a backdrop of apathy.

    No one expressed opposition to a military attack on Iran, and several demanded it.

    At least two people (seen in the video), called for elimination, saying “any threat on our country should be removed from the land,” and “eliminate them.”

    Israelis in West Jerusalem call for attack on Iran

    • Mortimer
      July 27, 2015 at 21:33

      Yeah, circle the wagons – the red-skin savages are about to attack !

      Pay no mind to the fact that, after the Civil War, european immigrants flowing to America by Boat Loads were handed Winchester rifles & ammo and told to head west and kill “redskins” and take their land…

      It’s the same Old Story, isn’t it?

  15. Abe
    July 27, 2015 at 15:18

    “The Israeli line is that the agreement is merely a temporary lull, and that it will simply embolden Iran to plan for a bomb once the agreement expires ten years hence.”

    Gareth Porter condenses the “Israeli line” beyond all recognition.

    In fact, the Israeli line — what’s being vomited up verbatim by bought-and-paid-for U.S. lawmakers and political pundits — is precisely:
    1) Iran will receive $150 billion to “expand worldwide terror”
    2) Iran will “have nuclear weapons in 10 years” or earlier

    The latter argument — that Iran will get the bomb in 10 years or less — has been barked by Israel for more than three decades.

    The monetary argument — that Iranian money funds terrorism — is more central to Israel’s actual motives to “kill the deal”.

    Israel defines all opposition as “terrorism” (including stone-wielding Palestinian youth) and designates Iran as the “leading terrorist state” (for supporting the countries Israel wants to invade, occupy and ethnically cleanse).

    Porter seems unable to fathom the convergence of Israeli politics and regional military strategy in the Middle East with US global economic and geo-strategic interests.

    The Israelis do understand US politics. Indeed, so much of it is “made in Israel”.

    • Anonymous
      July 27, 2015 at 19:52

      Large Areas Of West Bank Desert Declared “Closed Military Zone”
      February 10, 2015
      by Saed Bannoura

      We, “law abiding” Americans preach and teach against BULLYISM.

      A now Internationally Illegal form of Bullying, appearing as COLONIZING has continuously transpired in the so-called “occupied territories.”

      Gun-Tooting land-grabbers in the old west of America got away with actual murder and massacre in stealing “unclaimed” land as did European colonizers of India, Africa, China, South America, the Caribbean and later, the arid Middle East.
      Now Israel has become the 20th/21st century colonizers and they are, Naturally, our allies…

      To Wit:
      The Israeli army issued a ruling, on Monday evening, considering large areas of the West Bank desert, a closed military zone, in preparation for the expansion of >>> five illegal Jewish-only colonies<<>>removing the Palestinians from their lands and replacing them with illegal colonies<<>>illegal colonial activities, <<>>displace thousands of Bedouins,<<>>theft<<>>colonies and military zones,” <<< he added, “Protests are ongoing against the plan; that is why the Jerusalem Gate tent village was installed on lands Israel wants to loot; the army demolished it four times in five days.”

      The official said the Israel plans largely aim at preventing the establishment of an independent, contiguous state, and even to nullify any possible land swap as part of any future agreement.

      He called on President Mahmoud Abbas, and various legal and human rights groups, to contact different international groups, including the UN and the International Criminal Court to expose Israel and its ongoing crimes.

  16. incontinent reader
    July 27, 2015 at 13:50

    Superb article.

    I had hoped your magnificently researched book would have changed the narrative before now- or at least caused our leaders to question it- but unfortunately none in the Administration and few in Congress have the guts to face up to the lie or to the interests that pressure them to accept it and repeat it. They are simply too afraid to risk the blowback that would come in the media and elsewhere from those institutions and persons that have perpetuated the lie for so many decades and still have much invested in it- and the benefits that accrue from its perpetuation.

    I suppose all one can hope for is to keep trying to get out the message and trust that solid facts, persuasive presentation and, more important, the success over time of the agreement will eventually change the hearts and minds of those who can make a difference. The shame of it is that as long as we keep demonizing Iran, our country’s best interests, economic and otherwise, will be frustrated and denied, while the Europeans, Russians and Chinese who see things with Iran more as they are, will able to cash in.

  17. Joe Tedesky
    July 27, 2015 at 09:58

    We Americans who are hopeful that peace will prevail in the Middle East must be prepared for the worst. This U.S. Congress belongs more to Israel, than to the United States people. I expect this Republican Congress to go against the P5+1 agreement. The Senate Republicans will only need 13 Democrates to kill this Iranian nuclear deal, and we should be ready to see President Obama lose his own party in this regard. AIPAC is reported to be spending between 20 to 30 million dollars to go against any deal for peace with Iran, so apparently war is truly on the table. Israel due to one reason or the other needs the U.S. Air power if they wish to attack Iran from the sky. The U.S. is arming Israel and Saudi Arabia to the teeth. I can only imagine what Israel is up to when it comes to their alliance with the Iranian MEK. How creative will they be at dreaming up a suitable ‘false flag’ which will send decent people into the streets screaming retaliation now. When I served in the Navy we were always told to, ‘think the worst and the best will happen’, so my mind has been conditioned that way. Although, I prefer to see the glass half full, but come on now we are talking, Netanyahu, Sheldon Adelson, the U.S. Congress, and people such as the Kagan’s. If Goldman Sachs or J.P. Morgan/Chase does any banking with Iran’s newly released sanctioned money, then be ready for some real violence. Finally, by signing off on this P5+1 deal the United States has become free of Russia and China, and all systems are go. Lastly, I’m afraid that by today’s standards it would be unpatriotic for this U.S. Congress to vote against Israel. Am I a Debbie downer or am I just being realistic, you be the judge.

    • Mark
      July 27, 2015 at 10:49


      I’m sure you know; the US government has already proven to be unpatriotic over and over again by putting Israel’s interests ahead of our own — including fighting Israel’s preplanned wars at our expense while they sit back and tell us what to do, as is becoming so blatantly obvious.

      Anyone who thinks the US would have invaded the Mid-East alone, without the prodding and helpful “intelligence” and propaganda from Israel, along with the “cover” of having Israel as an excuse to invade and kill at will, while throwing fire on Islam’s internal conflicts, and also imposing regime change anywhere we like — is mistaken — and Israel couldn’t do this without the US being complicit. This dynamic duo of Israel USA is absolutely criminal when they combine their “talents” along with the support and backing of so many US civilians that are also criminal traitors to the USA.

      • Joe Tedesky
        July 27, 2015 at 18:11

        Mark, if the U.S. Congress were to represent the values of a true democracy you would think there would be some in congress who would defend the Palestinians. Outside of Representative Keith Ellison I don’t think there are to many others who would stick up for these poor souls. My remarks concerning Israel should not be taken as anything other than my criticism of Israel’s governing body. Just as my Italian grandparents were not responsible for Mussolini’s actions, there are many Jewish people who do not support Netanyahu’s demands. Maybe, our American press should report more about the Jewish who do not like what Israel does, but that probably doesn’t sell well. I know that J Street does approve of the P5+1 agreement, but AIPAC does not. It always comes down to money, doesn’t it?

        • Mark
          July 27, 2015 at 19:14

          Ted, if the mainstream news networks came out tomorrow and discussed the truth about how some Jews view Israel’s policies, methods and actions when compared to their “official” statements, I suspect it would be as big a story as any since WWII.

          Once the story’s momentum got going we would find that many American and Israeli Jews, and others, are under the same propaganda spell as the general US public.

          Once those facts are established the next logical step would be for the press to investigate their own industry and explain how they’ve been instrumental in misleading so many people and being instrumental in the subsequent war crimes.

          Of course as it stands presently the media networks do possess anything near the integrity that would bring all of this into the open.

          That leave this website and all the other alternative sites with their patrons who are trying to make a difference by bringing the truth out in the open.

          • Joe Tedesky
            July 27, 2015 at 19:28

            You got that right, Mark!

        • July 28, 2015 at 04:14

          The US supports the most venal and murderous occupation in modern history and is backing occupation, colonisation and apartheid by supporting Israel.

    • F. G. Sanford
      July 27, 2015 at 12:15

      Joe, here’s an “off the wall” thought for you. I know, I know, some loon will say the Israelis assassinated JFK to get “the bomb”. But that would mean they were the puppet-masters behind Allen Dulles, Prescott Bush, J. Edgar Hoover, Lyman Lemnitzer, Curtis LeMay, Maxwell Taylor and a whole host of other devout Cold Warriors. Keep in mind, early in the game, Israel was getting their weapons from the Soviet Union, not the U.S. (allies?) That didn’t sit well with Cold Warriors. The whole thing comes down to this: “Who’s really in charge?” The ostensible strategy here is to open Iran energy exports to Europe in order to hurt Russia. The UK is having second thoughts about EU membership, because if they can’t have their Empire, at least they want to get their sh*t-hooks back into India. Lately, that’s not happening. Then, there’s that Status of Forces agreement Israel just signed with Greece. And part of the reason for Greece’s massive debt is because Germany bribed their politicians to buy three submarines they didn’t really need. But if you look at a map, consider what Israel and Greece now control with their German submarines(!). All this talk of Israel killing “the deal” is suspicious. It was ratified by the UN on the 20th, and by the EU on the 21st. It’s now international law. The sanctions are already rumored to be less effective than Swiss cheese, and EU Gangster-garchs are lining up to do business. They won’t be happy if Bibi steals Christmas. Either Israel “protests too much”, or there’s the smell of Dallas in Tel Aviv. If i had to bet the farm on AIPAC or “Skull and Bones”, it’s an easy pick. Just a thought…I think Bibi’s official status is “off the reservation”, and the real target is still Russia.

      • Joe Tedesky
        July 27, 2015 at 18:44

        F.G., I agree, I don’t think Israel had anything to do with the JFK assassination. Myer Lansky probably at best was asked by Sam Giancana or Carlos Marcello if it were okay to use Jack (Rubenstein) Ruby to whack Oswald, but that’s it. Oh, possibly Lansky reminded J. Edgar that he still had those naughty photos of Hoover from that crazy Christmas party back in 39, but nothing more. No, when it comes to the Kennedy assassinations all eyes should look towards Texas.

        Your post really got me to thinking, and you have made your point. Iran maybe saved for another day due to its oil reserves. Even more so since Iran is borrowing from an early page of Putin’s game plan, and encouraging foreign investment. You ask who’s in charge, may I suggest, it’s the money who’s in charge?


        I must admit though, I never though of Bibi being in any real danger. If this is something to contemplate, then ‘holy conspiracy theory batman’, that really would be news! Maybe Ayatollah Khamenei should assign some of his Iranian body guards to protect Netanyahu, because if anything bad happens to Bibi you know who will get blamed first.

        • July 28, 2015 at 04:48

          James Abourezk represented South Dakota in Congress from 1971 to 1979. He is the author of numerous articles and books, including Advise & Dissent: Memoirs of South Dakota and the U.S. Senate. CNI asked Senator Abourezk about his experiences with the Israel Lobby. In his first response he told of an Israeli plot to assassinate him. In this column he discusses threats to his family, Alan Dershowitz, and Israeli lobbyists embedded in the U.S. State Department:


          • July 28, 2015 at 04:58

            And my point is: Embedded Lobbyists.

            It is difficult to describe how deep into the U.S. Government the Israel Lobby is embedded, but occasionally signs of the depth of its penetration become obvious. I can cite two instances where it was more than obvious.

            I received a call one day from a career State Department diplomat, someone I had met during a trip I had made to the Middle East. He was my “control officer” when I was in Egypt on that trip, the diplomat whose job it was to stay with me during my stay there.

            His call came out of the blue, at least two or three years after having met him in Cairo. He sounded both desperate and frantic, telling me he had to come to my apartment to talk to me about something.

            When we met, he was totally different than when I had met him in Cairo, then a very suave professional diplomat. The day he came to my apartment he was both nervous and frantic, telling me that someone had to do something about the Israeli Lobby. They were “everywhere” in the State Department, he said, leaning on anyone who had anything to do with the Middle East. By that, he explained, he had witnessed both Lobby representatives and Israeli officials working over U.S. diplomats in every kind of setting, that is, he saw them doing so in restaurants, in State Department offices, virtually everywhere. All he wanted to do, he said, was to stop it, and he didn’t know how. I had to confess that I didn’t either.

            I’m not certain that anyone in Washington, D.C. knows the total amount of money and favors our government gives to Israel, largely due to its Lobby. Aside from the several billions of dollars in aid that goes from our Treasury to Israel, there are a great number of top secret contracts that we sign with the Israeli government that could not stand the light of day should they be disclosed. I do remember that our taxpayers funded the “Arrow” air defense system Israel has now to deter incoming rockets and missiles.

            I also knew about Israeli Aircraft Industries having an office at the airport in Wilmington, Delaware, presumably to handle air force contracts between Israel and the U.S. government. Why else would there be such an office in Delaware?

            Other avenues for the Lobby to Pursue?

            After I left the Senate and began practicing law in Washington, D.C. I was retained by a very wealthy Palestinian who had spent a number of years attending schools in the United States. He received a PhD from Columbia University in New York, and had spent a lot of time making money and investing it in real estate in various parts of America, as well as in Europe. He was married to a Palestinian woman and they had two sons, both of whom were born in New York during his schooling there.

            My client was building a satisfying life, traveling in Europe and the United States to tend to his business interests, until, one day, he was surprisingly denied entry into the United States. He was accused of being a member of the PLO. Other than all Palestinians considering themselves belonging to the Palestinian liberation movement, he had never done anything that would brand him as a terrorist. He suspected that someone who was an enemy had deliberately told the U.S. government that he was a PLO member, hoping to cause him problems.

            This was during the Reagan Administration, so my first move was to hire a Republican law firm to help lobby for a visa for him. He not only had business interests in the United States, but his two sons were both in college here, so not being allowed to come into the U.S. was a decided handicap.

            Aside from the law firm charging great amounts of money for whatever time they spent on his case, the lawyer assigned to his case was ultimately never able to get him cleared to enter the U.S. Finally, the lawyer/lobbyist told my client that he had a Jewish partner in the firm who was well connected in Israel, and would be able, he said, to travel to Israel to plead his case and to obtain Israel’s approval for his entry visa into the United States. He was told that the cost would be extra for the service.

            My client looked at him, dumbfounded, and to his credit, said that he would prefer not to enter the U.S. if it came to relying on the Israeli government’s intervention to get him a visa.


            JAMES ABOUREZK is a board member of the Council for the National Interest (CNI) and is a contributor to CounterPunch and the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs. His e mail address is: georgepatton45@gmail.com

  18. alexander
    July 27, 2015 at 09:50

    Top Notch reporting, Mr Porter,….TOP NOTCH !

    Thanks !

    • July 28, 2015 at 02:45

      Even though I admire Mr. Porter and have always recommended his stuff whenever I could, I do disagree with some of his essential points regarding the Obama administration. I suspect that neither Obama nor Kerry truly believe what they HAVE TO say publicly or in congressional confrontations. Hypocrisy is the greatest tool of statecraft. Just imagine if Kerry or the President were to truly and uninhibitedly express their beliefs regarding Israel. That would be political, as well as diplomatic, suicide in America. You just have to watch the Repub & Dem Candidates running for President falling over each other year after year to please their Jewish American sponsors, who treat them like chattel. The whole world now knows and have begun to pay no attention to US politicians domestic politics, including the Iranians themselves. Russia & China have provided an alternative to those who want it. Ignore them at your own peril.

      • July 28, 2015 at 05:03

        JAMES ABOUREZK is a board member of the Council for the National Interest (CNI) and is a contributor to CounterPunch and the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs. His e mail address is: georgepatton45@gmail.com

        Letters of 76 Senators

        When Gerald Ford was President and Henry Kissinger was his Secretary of State, the two decided, during U.S. backed peace talks to bring Israel around to U.S. thinking by withholding American aid to Israel. That effort ended quickly when 76 U.S. Senators signed an AIPAC drafted letter to President Ford containing a thinly veiled threat to Mr. Ford if he continued to withhold military aid to Israel. The letter prompted President Ford to give in to the Lobby’s demand and to resume aid to Israel.

        What happened leading up to the publication of the letter in the U.S. press is an interesting story. I had dinner with one Senator—who shall go unnamed here—the night before the letter was released to the press. He told me that he had no intention of signing it.

        The next day, when the letter appeared in the Washington Post, I asked my friend what had happened.

        “Jim, I received phone call after phone call all during the day yesterday, calls from people who had gone beyond just supporting me in my election, but people—lawyers, doctors, professional people and businessmen—who had interrupted their careers to work in my campaign. I couldn’t say no to them, which is why you saw my name on the letter.”

        Later, in the Senate cloakroom, a number of us were standing together, talking about the letter. Ted Kennedy spoke first. “I knew that’s what would happen when I was approached to sign the letter, and I don’t like it at all. We should, next time, get together before signing such a letter, and all of us say no at the same time.” What Kennedy was referring to was the Israeli Lobby’s practice of picking off the Senators by going to one Senator, saying, “Senator So- and-so has signed, and you’d better not be the only potential presidential candidate not on the letter.” They would then go to Senator So-and-so and say the same thing. Ultimately, all of the leading Senators—especially those who wanted to run from President—would put their signature on the letter.

        Kennedy’s statement was what spurred me to say something, during a mini-debate I had with Hyman Bookbinder before a section of the D.C. Bar Association’s meeting in D.C. We were promoting a book we had written together as a debate on the Middle East—Through Different Eyes—and I mentioned that Senators would cheer on Israel in public but would bad mouth both Israel and the Lobby in private. One lawyer raised his hand and asked, “name just one U.S. Senator who would do that.”

        I said, simply, “Ted Kennedy,” hoping he was politically strong enough to resist the Lobby’s counter-attack.

        Two or three days later, Ted Kennedy called me and said, “Abourezk, what the hell have you done to me?” I guess Ted had underestimated his own political strength, or at least, did not want any of it diluted in a tiff over the Middle East. And he for sure did not want to spend his time defending himself from the Israeli Lobby.

      • Mark
        July 28, 2015 at 06:55

        Ms. Menon, Can you give us a sense of any progress the resistance to Israel’s lobby and Israel in general, might be making?

        After five years of sporadicly reading comments on alternative and mainstream network “news” websites, I believe more Americans have become aware and are angry regarding Israel’s undue, not influence but control of “our” cowering politicians.

        This gain in public awareness is possibly being more than offset by Israel’s streangthening grip?

        These public displays of Israel’s control, though disgusting, with Netanyahu coming here to propagandize, and dictate Israel’s policy for Congress to implement, is also bringing reality right out into the open and everyday Americans are going to get really “red” in a number of ways if they start figuring out what’s actually been going on…

        • July 28, 2015 at 12:40

          @ Mark

          As the Iran deal becomes a reality, Washington’s neoconservatives and their allies are bristling. A sanctioned and isolated Iran had long been one of their policy pillars. This is no longer the case. The neocon agenda has experienced a major setback. Is this a temporary reversal or a stunning defeat?CrossTalking with Fred Fleitz, David Swanson, and Brian Becker.

          Please watch the debate here:

          Neocon retreat ?


          or here:


        • July 28, 2015 at 15:28

          @ Mark To answer your question. It seems to me that this is a part of the general, dramatically growing isolation of Israel and its Zionist backers in the eyes of the world.

          The horror of Gaza, Palestine’s illegal occupation and ongoing egregious violation of international law by Tel Aviv, The illegal invasion of Iraq on false intelligence provided by Israel, Israeli intrigues with Al Qaeda in wrecking Syria, the increasing awareness created by the global BDS movement, and now Netanyahu’s crazy outbursts over diplomacy with
          Iran. It’s all downhill for the Zionists and is such a PR disaster
          that I don’t think even all that lobby money in Washington can

          As for future meddling by next US administration and the N deal, it
          will be very hard to overturn an international treaty, even if they
          wanted to. Hard to say for sure. The way political culture in
          Washington has become so degenerate especially evident with the
          current presidential race anything is possible.

          The gravy train (US financial & military aid ) for Israeli regime and Pentagon firms may continue, but it’s still another nail in the coffin as far as the growing
          public’s contempt goes. This just adds to the growing public disgust
          with this horrible excrescence being conducted in the name of

          It is shocking that such outrageous weaponisation and pandering is
          indulged, but let it continue as it just adds more condemnation to the
          eventual collapse.

          Pepe Escobar, the geopolitical analyst of Eurasia, has written an upbeat piece:

          How China and Russia are running rings around Washington

      • chet roman
        July 28, 2015 at 13:15

        Spot on! Obama and Kerry are saying exactly what they have to say because of the political pressures they face from special interest groups and the deep state. I doubt very much that either Obama or Kerry believe in the nonsense they are spewing about Iran but the only way to introduce a peaceful resolution with Iran is by using the neocon/zionist rhetoric that has thouroughly corrupted our political system.

        • PSchultz
          August 7, 2015 at 22:42

          It doesn’t really matter whether Obama and Kerry believe what they are saying or not. By speaking as they do, they facilitate the neo-con’s agenda, thereby providing no foil for the standard American mindset that leads the US into war after war after war, along with the militarization of the world meant to “project” American power everywhere. Besides, I for one will not hitch my wagon to an argument that is premised on, “Well, Obama doesn’t believe what he is saying.” I and even Ms. Menon, don’t know what he believes, as her own remarks make clear. What I do know is that it is not inaccurate to refer to the Bush/Obama administration when it comes to how Obama has acted with regard to “national security” matters. Obama has acted like an ordinary, run of the mill, status quo politician and his rhetoric reflects this.

    • Abbybwood
      July 28, 2015 at 12:25

      It appears that “The Plan for Greater Israel in the Middle East” that was published in Israel in the early 1980’s, has not become the covert foreign policy of the United States led by the Neocons from the Reagan and Bush administrations with the baton having been handed off to Obama?:


      Keeping Victoria Nuland, a Neocon with a staunch Neocon husband on at the State Department always puzzled me.

      To back this all up we had “The Project for A New American Century” written by the U.S. Neocon cabal which said that reaching their goal of U.S. global hegemony would be a slow one unless there were to be a very large “catalyzing event to stir up passions for war, like a new Pearl Harbor”. Voila! 9/11! And all the ugly wars/occupations and coups and loss of civil liberties that came along with it.

      To further cement my thinking I am reminded of the conversation Gen. Wesley Clark had with Amy Goodman around 2005 where he detailed a visit he made to The Pentagon Joint Chiefs office about two weeks after 9/11.

      There he claims a general handed handed him a memo stating that war preparations were being made to attack Iraq. Clark said, “Why? Did they have something to do with 9/11 or with Al Queda?”

      The general told him, “No! I guess because we have such a huge military, every problem looks like a nail!”

      Then two weeks after that Clark paid another visit and he asked the general, “Are we still going to attack Iraq?” And the general said as he handed him a piece of paper, “Oh, it’s much worse than that. This memo just came in stating we have plans to go to war against seven countries in five years: Iraq, Somalia, Sudan, Libya, Lebanon, Syria and ending with Iran”. (YouTube)

      The plans Wesley Clark told Amy Goodman about play right into the plans for the “Greater Israel” project. And all of this information is surely just the tip of the iceberg.

      The questions for me are:

      Why never a mention or discussion of Israel’s nuclear weapons and the missiles they have plus the plans to use them detailed in “The Samson Option” (Seymour Hersh wrote a book about this).

      Who is driving our foreign policy train? Elected U.S. citizens who have all sworn oaths to the Constitution or the State of Israel?

      Many years ago Scott Ritter wrote an article detailing the control Israel has over the United States and at the end he said, “why don’t we just raise the Israeli flag and call it a day?”

      • lightweight buffoon
        July 28, 2015 at 14:29

        I am starting to wonder if The Protocols were not a hoax…

        • Aman
          July 28, 2015 at 15:24

          The hoax was committed by the perpetrators on themselves when some of those neocon buffoons actually believed they could pull off what the Protocols advocated.

      • July 31, 2015 at 03:15

        @ Abbybwood

        TRUE. “useful idiot”(s) all of them.

Comments are closed.