US Tries to Stir Up Trouble for Iran

As President Trump’s foreign policy falls deeply under the Israeli-Saudi spell, his Mideast diplomats are stirring up conflict against Iran and drawing a rebuke from Iraq, as ex-CIA analyst Paul R. Pillar explains.

By Paul R. Pillar

In Iraq, as in Syria, the imminent extinguishing of the mini-state of the so-called Islamic State (ISIS) is raising the question of whether U.S. objectives in Iraq really are focused on countering ISIS or will balloon into some other reason to keep American forces there indefinitely.

Iranian women attending a speech by Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. (Iranian government photo)

The most common rationale voiced by those arguing for an indefinite stay is to counter Iranian influence. The rationale echoes larger alarms, being sounded by the Trump administration as well as others, about an Iran that supposedly is on the march and threatening to bring most of the Middle East under its sway. The alarms are filled with unsupported zero-sum assumptions about what any Iranian action or influence means for U.S. interests.

Those tempted to succumb to the alarms as they apply to Iraq should bear in mind two important realities about the Iraqi-Iranian relationship.

The first is that the biggest boost to Iranian influence in Iraq was the U.S. invasion of March 2003. The net effect of the whole costly, unpleasant history of the United States in Iraq — including the initial conquest, later surge, and all the ups and downs of occupation — as far as Iranian influence is concerned is to have made that influence much greater than it ever was while Saddam Hussein was still ruling Iraq.

If Iranian influence were the overriding worry about the Middle East that the rhetoric of the Trump administration makes it out to be, this record strongly suggests that an unending U.S. military expedition would not be a smart way to assuage that worry.

The second key reality is that Iraq and Iran, for reasons of geographic proximity and a bloody history, are necessarily huge factors in each other’s security. That fact cannot be shoved aside by outside actors talking about filling vacuums, pursuing their own self-defined rivalries, or imposing zero-sum assumptions that do not correspond to ground truth in the Persian Gulf region.

The extremely costly Iran-Iraq War, begun by Iraq and fought from 1980 to 1988, is the most prominent part of the bloody history and a formative experience for leaders in both countries. We lack accurate figures on the war’s casualties, but deaths numbered in the hundreds of thousands for each country. Using the mid-range of estimates of those killed in the war, the combined death toll was probably somewhere around three-quarters of a million. The war was the deadliest conflict in the Middle East over the past half century.

Desire for Cordial Relations

Against that historical backdrop, it behooves the leaders of both Iraq and Iran to keep their relationship on an even keel. Although the two neighbors still have differing interests, it is in the larger security interest of each to have cordiality prevail over conflict in their bilateral relationship. The governments in both Baghdad and Tehran appear to realize that.

Iraqi Prime Minister Haidar al-Abadi.

It helps that the two countries have, along with their differing interests, some important parallel interests. Chief among those right now are their interests in quashing ISIS and in not letting Kurdish separatism tear pieces out of each country’s sovereign territory. These interests also align with declared U.S. objectives about fighting ISIS and upholding the territorial integrity of Iraq, although this fact often seems to get overlooked in the United States amid the obsession with opposing Iran and confronting it everywhere about everything.

Many countries, including the United States, share a general interest in peace and stability in the Middle East — for numerous reasons, including how the lack of peace and stability encourages the sorts of violent extremism that can have consequences beyond the region. It follows that having more cordiality than conflict in the Iraq-Iran relationship, which was so disastrously explosive in the recent past, also is in the general interest.

That peace and stability inside Iraq is in Iran’s interest as much as in other countries’ interests gets overlooked amid obsession-related caricatures of Iran that portray it as fomenting instability wherever and whenever it can. Persistent instability in a country with which Iran shares a border of more than 900 miles is not in Iran’s interest. It is ironic that this fact seems hard to accept by those who habitually use the term “spread of instability” in opining about security issues in the Middle East.

Iranian leaders also are smart enough, and informed enough about Iraqi affairs, to realize how destabilizing would be narrowly minded sectarian favoritism and how easy it would be to overplay their own hand. However empathetic the Iranians are to their Shia co-religionists, they realize that Sunni-bashing policies do not constitute a formula for stability on their eastern border. They also are aware of Iraqi nationalist (and Arab) sensitivities. They can see such sensitivities even in cleric and militia leader Moqtada al-Sadr, commonly described as a Shia zealot, who recently made friendly visits to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, which are among the chief regional rivals of Iran.

Stirring the Pot

Amid these realities, it is jarring and inappropriate for the United States, in acting out its obsession with seeking confrontation with Iran, to lecture the Iraq government about how the Iranian-supported militias need, in the words of Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, “to go home.”

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson at his swearing-in ceremony on Feb. 1, 2017. (Screen shot from

It is not surprising that such preaching raised the dander of the Iraqi government of Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi, which pointed out that the militias in question, although armed and trained in part by Iran, consist of Iraqis. Abadi further stated, in response to this U.S. effort to tell the Iraqis how to organize their internal security efforts, “No side has the right to intervene in Iraq’s affairs or decide what Iraqis should do.”

Abadi later understandably expressed his frustration with the U.S. administration trying to make his country a playing board for Washington’s game of seeking confrontation with Iran. Abadi said, “We would like to work with you, both of you [meaning the United States and Iran]. But please don’t bring your trouble inside Iraq. You can sort it anywhere else.”

Iraqis are contemplating not only how the Iranian-backed militias have done much of the heavy lifting in defeating ISIS in Iraq. They also can see most recently the constructive behind-the-scenes Iranian role in resolving the standoff with the Kurds over Kirkuk and nearby oilfields in a way that advanced the objective of Iraqi territorial integrity and sovereignty with minimal bloodshed.

Abadi’s own government can rightly claim most of the credit for this result, and the Prime Minister’s domestic political stock has risen as a result. But to the extent any outside player played a positive role, that player was Iran. The United States does not appear to have contributed to the outcome to any comparable degree.

Two basic reasons explain the U.S. obtuseness in failing to recognize and understand the regional geopolitical realities mentioned above. One is the demonization of Iran and fixation on opposing it everywhere on everything, to the exclusion of attention given to the many other facets of security issues in the Middle East.

The other reason is the chronic difficulty that Americans, relatively secure behind two ocean moats, have had in understanding the security problems, and responses to those problems, of nations without similar geographic blessings.

This was the reason that, during the Cold War, “Finlandization” became a U.S. term of derision aimed at countries that deemed it advisable to observe certain policy limits in order to live peaceably as neighbors of the Soviet Union. It is today a reason for failing to appreciate fully how Iraqis analyze what is necessary to live peaceably in their own neighborhood.

Such understanding would come more easily to Americans if they had experienced wars with their North American neighbors that had been as bloody as the Iran-Iraq War. And perhaps such understanding would come if today Iran were lecturing the Canadians and Mexicans about how to organize their internal security and about how they need to reduce U.S. influence.

Paul R. Pillar, in his 28 years at the Central Intelligence Agency, rose to be one of the agency’s top analysts. He is author most recently of Why America Misunderstands the World. (This article first appeared as a blog post at The National Interest’s Web site. Reprinted with author’s permission.)

38 comments for “US Tries to Stir Up Trouble for Iran

  1. Delia Ruhe
    October 29, 2017 at 16:13

    “…such understanding would come if today Iran were lecturing the Canadians and Mexicans about how to organize their internal security and about how they need to reduce U.S. influence.”

    Nobody likes a lecture from someone who’s not minding his own business–especially when the advice accurately strikes a certain chord.

  2. Anna
    October 29, 2017 at 14:23

    Here is more for the New Zealand’s Zionist community: Jewish oligarchs have been cooperating and directly financing Ukrainian neo-Nazis.
    Among the Jewish oligarchs is Mr. Kolomoysky, an Israeli citizen. His support for the neo-Nazis has been going for years. Would Ms. Juliet Moses, spokeswoman for the Jewish Council of New Zealand, petition Israeli government to revoke the Israeli citizenship in case of the Holocaust-denier Mr. Kolomoysky?

    • fuster
      October 30, 2017 at 03:03

      fort russ?????????????????

      are you serious?

      you’re linking to a lunatic fringe?

      • October 30, 2017 at 22:04

        Get lost, dimwit. Nobody is listening to you.

  3. Anna
    October 29, 2017 at 12:16

    The zionist community of New Zealand shows its “humanitarian” and “freedom-loving” face:
    “New Zealand’s Zionist community calls for expulsion of Iranian diplomat after his ‘fiery’ remarks” he made at a private gathering about the state of Israel. Juliet Moses, spokeswoman for the Jewish Council of New Zealand, spearheads the campaign to expel Ghahremani.” Ms. Moses did not like that “others” mention Israelis’ support for Al-Nusra [known as the local franchisee of Al-Qaeda operating in Syria].
    Hey, Ms. Moses, the “others” reveal the truth: “In a speech at the Herzliya Conference, Israel’s military intelligence chief, Major General Herzi Halevy, took Israel’s long-standing position that it “prefers ISIS” over the Syrian government to a whole ‘nother level, declaring openly that Israel does not want to see ISIS defeated in the war.” – He stated that openly, not at a private gathering.
    Here is more for Ms. Moses: “Israel’s Defense Minister Moshe Yaalon said on Tuesday that if he had to choose between the Islamic State militant group (ISIS) and Iran on the country’s borders, he would “choose ISIS” every time. In comments made at the Institute for National Security Studies’ (INSS) conference in Tel Aviv, Yaalon said that if the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad were to fall, he would prefer the militant group to control territory on Israel’s northern border rather than an Iranian proxy such as the Lebanese Shiite militant group Hezbollah.” – Again, that was an open admission.
    Since the US has been fighting the ISIS terrorists, should not the Israeli diplomats be expelled from the US?
    Juliet Moses, spokeswoman for the Jewish Council of New Zealand, should do some truth searching (if she is able to) before opening her hateful mouth.

    • anon
      October 29, 2017 at 12:20

      Gosh, why settle for small change when you can make billions in seconds by helping deposed African dictators smuggle gold? Just click here for the Tel Aviv malware.

      • October 30, 2017 at 22:03

        hahahaha. That should cut messages, like the above, short.

  4. Anonymous
    October 28, 2017 at 09:55

    Spot on!

  5. MichaelWme
    October 28, 2017 at 07:13

    Bush, jr only won the 2000 election because his brother, as governor of Florida, got to pick which of the disputed vote counts to accept, validated by a 5 – 4 Supreme Court decision. His oil was worth less than the cost of pumping it out of the ground. So he announced that 9/11 was ordered by Iran and perpetrated by Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, the DPRK, and Cuba. Obama and Trump both agree with this analysis, and that not one GCC Arab had any connection with 9/11.

    In 2003, Bush, jr ordered the US to force regime change in Iraq. According to the New York Times, this transformed Iraq from an impoverished, brutal dictatorship, and state sponsor of terror, into a peaceful and prosperous democracy. The price of oil went up to $150, all Bush, jr’s Friends got no-bid contracts to support the war effort, and Bush, jr won the 2004 election by a comfortable majority. A win-win situation.

    Obama did the same beneficial transformation of Libya, and Trump will do the same great favour for Iran, and probably win the 2020 election!

    • fuster
      October 30, 2017 at 03:05

      Obama did not transform Libya, you lunatic.

      Gaddafi was bombing the hell out of his own citizens before the Arab League asked the UN to ask NATO to help stop the slaughter

      • October 30, 2017 at 22:01


  6. Hojjat Mehri
    October 28, 2017 at 02:21

    Three (not two) basic reasons explain the U.S. obtuseness in failing to recognize and understand the regional geopolitical realities mentioned above. Number 1 and the most important reason is that American foreign policy in the Middle East has no logical basis since it is totally dictates by Israel and it’s supporters. America must accommodates their wishes even if means getting involve in another disastrous military adventure as we did in Iraq in 2003 Iran is demonized because Israel is not happy with the roll Iran is playing in the Middle east and that means we have to destroy Iran and as Israel expects, the whole world should accommodate their wishes blindly, as America has done for half a century. The other two less important reasons for our obsession with Iran is explained in a very simple language by the author, Mr. Pillar

  7. Seer
    October 27, 2017 at 22:47

    So, the US overthrows Mosaddegh, In Iran. Then the US supports Hussein, in Iraq. Then the US pits Iraq and Iran against each other. The then the US invades Iraq (Gulf War I). The US supports the Kurds, egging them on to oust Hussein. The US invades Iraq and totally destroys the country. The Kurds, after doing a lot of dirty work for the US, look to finally form their own nation and the US steps aside and allows them to face-plant.

    We’re the US, and we’re here to help! No, really. Pull my finger!

    • Realist
      October 28, 2017 at 04:04

      And, how many of us foolishly thought that this entire mess simply stemmed from Dick Cheney’s evil mind and Dubya’s simple mind? It didn’t stop there (Obomber and the Sorcerer’s Apprentice prove that) and, in retrospect, it didn’t start there. It goes much farther back and lower into the dark dank bowels of the Deep State. It’s amazing that, after the price America has paid in treasure, blood and credibility since the start of this century for its catastrophic wars of conquest, the discredited idiots in charge are still demanding and receiving support for much more of the same. When will these maniacs have their lethal toys finally taken away from them? Who will do it? How can they do it? Just do it!!

    • October 30, 2017 at 22:00

      We (the US) have the money to play these war “games”. (BTW: I am not the we.)

  8. Herman
    October 27, 2017 at 18:19

    It is encouraging that groups historically at each other’s throats might begin to understand they have common enemies and they can only effectively counter their power by joining forces. If this occurs, if the alliance of Syria, Iraq and Iran comes to fruition and they can form a coherent front, the result can be dangerous, but it can also be hopeful. The latter made possible if their enemies come to understand that they cannot impose their will by force. The more dangerous alternative, active today, is for the enemies to be prodded into action in the belief they must act to prevent a common front before it matures. The hopeful outcome view will be derided, understandably, because of the history of the region. But it is possible, and with Russia remaining neutral or supporting such an alliance, other neighboring countries, such as Turkey might also come to realize the benefits of improving relations with Iran, Iraq and Syria. Certainly the Kurdish bomb planted by the US and Israel is a threat Turkey, as well as the three.

    • Sam F
      October 27, 2017 at 18:58

      Yes, Iran and Iraq are natural allies in having Shiite pluralities and large Kurdish minorities, as well as Sunnis who can be incorporated peaceably under the Kurdish autonomy model. Having fought common enemies in Isis et al, together with Turkey and Syria, the entire group needs every encouragement to bury the Sunni-Shiite differences, and bring mutual respect and equal rights to all of their factions.

      Saudi Arabia clearly sees that it cannot win against a united Iraq and Iran. The region might be better off if KSA/UAE et al were defeated, but if they can find a real common ground between Sunni and Shiite, and see that the US and Israel have been their enemies all along, this unity will bring real progress to the Mideast.

      Unity of the region will not only solve the tragic waste of lives in meaningless conflict, it will defeat the unspeakably corrupt schemes of the US and Israel, pitting factions against each other so as to steal land, and would surround Israel with the enemies it truly deserves. A resounding defeat of Israel would be beneficial for the US, which has been totally corrupted by the bribery of perverse racist zionists, and may never be able to restore democracy.

  9. fuster
    October 27, 2017 at 17:20

    this is fathomless stupidity written by a gormless lackwit.

    iran’s is a monstrous ultra-reactionary regime that oppresses the good people of Iran and which uses relentless violence in attempt to export their vile ways and worldview

    • anon
      October 27, 2017 at 18:32

      Your comment lacks any evidence or argument, and you cannot support any part of it.

    • Abe
      October 27, 2017 at 19:02

      Deeply fallen under the Israeli-Saudi spell, this fusterly trollish dolt lifts the redundant remark “gormless lackwit” from page 111 of The Lord Protector – Gaes of The Red Witch by Samuel Z Jones. Be warned!

      • fuster
        October 28, 2017 at 19:17

        Abe. you’re a fathomless ashhole

        • October 30, 2017 at 21:57

          You have no idea what fathomless means.

    • mark
      October 28, 2017 at 14:10

      Yes, America should overthrow this regime like it has in the past, and find some figure with impeccable democratic credentials like the Shah of Iran to rule the country instead.

    • MEexpert
      October 28, 2017 at 15:40

      I am deeply touched by your concern about the well being of the Iranian people. LOL. Troll indeed. How many shekels did you get for this comment

    • October 30, 2017 at 21:56

      Have you ever been there? You are a fool. What’s your agenda?
      P.S. Your English grammar sucks.

  10. Abe
    October 27, 2017 at 17:17

    “The Islamic State represents the perfect ‘proxy,’ occupying the ideal conduit and safe haven for executing America’s proxy war against Iran and beyond. Surrounding the Islamic State’s holdings are US military bases, including those illegally constructed in eastern Syria. Were the US to wage war against Iran in the near future, it is likely these assets would all ‘coincidentally’ coordinate against Tehran just as they are now being ‘coincidentally’ coordinated against Damascus.

    “The use of terrorism, extremists, and proxies in executing US foreign policy, and the use of extremists observing the Islamic State and Al Qaeda’s brand of indoctrination was demonstrated definitively during the 1980’s when the US with the assistance of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan – used Al Qaeda to expel Soviet forces from Afghanistan. This example is in fact mentioned explicitly by Brookings policymakers as a template for creating a new proxy war – this time against Iran.

    “For the US, there is no better stand-in for Al Qaeda than its successor the Islamic State. US policymakers have demonstrated a desire to use known terrorist organizations to wage proxy war against targeted nation-states, has previously done so in Afghanistan, and has clearly organized the geopolitical game board on all sides of Iran to facilitate its agenda laid out in 2009. With terrorists now killing people in Tehran, it is simply verification that this agenda is advancing onward.

    “Iran’s involvement in the Syrian conflict illustrates that Tehran is well aware of this conspiracy and is actively defending against it both within and beyond its borders. Russia is likewise an ultimate target of the proxy war in Syria and is likewise involved in resolving it in favor of stopping it there before it goes further. […]

    “In reality, the Islamic State – like Al Qaeda before it – depends on vast, multinational state sponsorship – state sponsorship the US, Europe, and its regional allies in the Persian Gulf are providing. It is also sponsorship they can – at anytime of their choosing – expose and end. They simply choose not to in pursuit of regional and global hegemony.”

    Tehran Was Always America’s and Thus the Islamic State’s Final Destination
    By Tony Cartalucci

    • Abe
      October 27, 2017 at 17:36

      The June 2009 Brookings Institution document on Iran was authored by leading pro-Israel war hawks from the “Saban Center for Middle East Policy”

      Which Path to Persia?
      Options for a New American Strategy toward Iran

      Kenneth M. Pollack, the “director of research” at the Saban Center, is a former CIA analyst and National Security Council staffer under Bill Clinton. A prominent “liberal hawk” cheerleader for the Iraq War, Pollack is credited with persuading liberals to endorse the invasion of Iraq. His 2002 book, The Threatening Storm, was influential in selling the “WMD” case. His 2005 book, The Persian Puzzle, recycled many of the same arguments, this time directed at Iran.

      Michael E. O’Hanlon, the “director of foreign policy research” at Brookings, is a war hawk and frequent op-ed writer for major news outlets like the Washington Post. In recent years, O’Hanlon has pushed for U.S. intervention in Syria. In April 2007, O’Hanlon and Fred Kagan urged the United States to invade and occupy Iran.

      In March 2003, shortly after the United States invaded Iraq, O’Hanlon contributed his name to an open letter published by the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), a neoconservative advocacy outfit closely associated with American Enterprise Institute that played a major role generating public support for the invasion of Iraq and pushing an expansive “war on terror.” Among those contributing their names to the document were hardline neocons like Max Boot, Eliot Cohen, Joshua Muravchik, and William Kristol, as well as liberal interventionists like O’Hanlon and Ivo Daalder, also a scholar based at Brookings.

      Martin Indyk, the “director” of the Saban Center, is a former AIPAC staffer. Indyk cofounded the Washington Institute for Near East Policy in 1985 with the wife of AIPAC Chairman Lawrence Weinberg and former president of the Jewish Federation, Barbi Weinberg. Despite his well known affiliation with the Israel Lobby and his Australian nationality, Bill Clinton appointed Indyk as the first foreign-born US Ambassador to Israel in 1995. The issuance of his US nationality had been expedited for his previous appointment by Clinton in 1993 as Middle East adviser on the National Security Council.

      In a March 2006 update on activities of the Israel Lobby, American political scientists John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt noted that media mogul Haim Saban is an “ardent Zionist”.

      Mearsheimer and Walt observed that “Saban Center publications never question US support for Israel and rarely, if ever, offer significant criticism of key Israeli policies.”

      In their landmark book, The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy (2007), Mearsheimer and note that the Saban Center at Brookings is “part of the pro-Israel chorus” (pg 156).

      In 2002, Saban pledged $13 million to start a “research” organization at Brookings.

      To put the Saban Center into perspective, one should note that Saban says “I’m a one-issue guy and my issue is Israel”. Saban has close ties with Bill and Hillary Clinton, and is one of their biggest campaign donors

      The annual Saban Forum hosted by Brookings since 2004 includes Israeli government officials.

      The Center no longer carries Saban’s name, and a note from the director explained that the partnership was “entering a new stage.” In a press release, Saban made clear he would “sustain and expand” the annual Saban Forum. “Haim is still a strong supporter for the Brookings Center, financial and otherwise, and he is still on the Brookings Board of Trustees,” the statement added.

    • Abe
      October 27, 2017 at 17:48

      The Israeli-Saudi-US Axis has deployed terrorist proxy forces Al Qaeda and ISIS against Syria and Iraq.

      For example, on 24 October 2017, the Intercept released an NSA document unearthed from leaked intelligence files provided by Edward Snowden which reveals that terrorist militants in Syria were under the direct command of foreign governments from the early years of the war which has now claimed half a million lives.

      Marked “Top Secret” the NSA memo focuses on events that unfolded outside Damascus in March of 2013.

      The US intelligence memo is evidence of internal US government confirmation of the direct role that both the Saudi and US governments played in fueling attacks on civilians and civilian infrastructure, as well as military targets in pursuit of “regime change” in Syria.

      Israel’s support for terrorist forces in Syria is well established. The Israelis and Saudis coordinate their activities.

      • JWalters
        October 27, 2017 at 19:38

        Thanks for these details on the Israeli influences behind the push for war with Iran.

        Pillar notes that “Many countries, including the United States, share a general interest in peace and stability in the Middle East”. Unfortunately Israel, currently controlling US foreign policy there, actually wants war. Israel was established by war profiteers to be a perpetual provocation, using immense wealth to bulldoze opposition, and using Zionist religious fanatics as pawns to kill Muslims in their Zionist Holy War. For readers who haven’t seen it, a concise history of this process is at
        “War Profiteers and the Roots of the War on Terror”

        • October 28, 2017 at 01:14

          JWalters,…thank you for the most detailed and well documented review of the origins of zionism that i have yet seen. The “War Profiteers” article gives a scrupulous analysis to the very complex circumstances that surround the founding of Israel while honing in on the inordinate influence of monied interests on world politics. It is a long but very worthwhile read.

        • fudmier
          October 28, 2017 at 17:06

 <Mr. Walters, just who do you thinks wants war with Iran? While I agree that the Lobby is pushing.. I think there are others with much greater need to eliminate the current regimes in Iran, Syria, Yemen, Russia and Iraq.. from having control over who is going to produce and sell their gas and oil. Its all about oil and gas competition

          US based LNG business must discover how to eliminate middle east competition throughout Europe because US exported LNG can not be exported at a price which is competitive in Europe (price is too high to compete). War is about market access, access to cheap oil and gas resources, and eliminating competition. Propaganda is needed to make it ok to be at war, but many people are going to die until the oil companies get through using nation states proxies to clear the way for them to sell high priced oil and gas shipped over the ocean to the low price oil and gas delivered over land by pipeline. .

          • anon
            October 29, 2017 at 12:15

            That is diversionary nonsense. There is no possibility of US LNG exports to Europe due to the cost. No US petroleum exports to Europe are desired because we are a net importer.

      • Joe Tedesky
        October 27, 2017 at 20:05

        Yeah thanks Abe, I always take Tony Cartalucci quite serious. He has an article from back in March/April 2012 describing John McCain with Ambassador Stevens strolling through the streets of Benghazi coming out of a building flying an al Queda Fly over their HQ’s, and it smacks of how on the ball Cartalucci is …..type in a search engine ‘John McCain Founding Father of Terrorism’, it should come up.

        My question is; can America take credit for bringing Iraq and Iran closer together? Also here’s idea; let Iraq be Iraq, and come home America and fix your own broken country.

        • Abe
          October 27, 2017 at 23:45

          “McCain called for US airstrikes on Syria. Promoting the use of America’s military while being unable to cite any credible or imminent threat to US territorial security would seem like a punishable offense or at least a sign of mental instability and grounds for dismissing the aged Senator. Instead, McCain represents the public face and voice of the corporate-financier agenda of Wall Street and London which has plotted a premeditated blitzkrieg from Tunisia to Thailand, and eventually to the doorsteps of both Moscow and Beijing. […]

          “with warmongers like John McCain, fellow IRI chairman Lindsey Graham, and Senator Joseph Lieberman calling for a repeat of Libya, it is essential that Americans look at the Al Qaeda flags waving over Benghazi and recognize McCain’s role helping hoist them aloft.

          “Thousands of American troops have shed their lives in a war they believed was meant to fight these very men now being handed nation after nation by US senators like McCain, who in fact were the principle proponents of the wars in both Afghanistan and Iraq. We are not witnessing a wave for liberation and democracy sweeping the globe, but rather a sinister deception paved in blood, terror, and betrayal of all kinds crafting a world not for ‘we the people’ to thrive in, but for Wall Street and London to feed on.”

          John McCain: Founding Father of the Terrorist Emirate of Benghazi
          By Tony Cartalucci

          • Joe Tedesky
            October 28, 2017 at 01:56

            It’s for this kind of John McCain stuff like you linked us too Abe where I find it hard to get all teary eyed for the old warmonger & thief (remember the S&L scandal). I swear instead.

            I seriously need to ask for forgiveness, and to be blessed with reverence for humility, or I’m going straight to hell for what McCain & others like him do to my objectivity of judgement. And yet everywhere you go in the big media world of America this man is a frigging hero. I think Trump’s rant about ‘I like my hero’s not captured’ made McCain and even bigger rock star…now the Left (if it’s left, or better yet what America now calls left) that now the limousine left is growing fond of his dying ass, so whoop dee doo for our favorite Admirals (not – ref; USS Liverty) Admiral’s son. I don’t wish John McCain no harm, but I do wish that he, and quite a few others like him, would just pick up their ugly selfs and just go away.

            Thanks for the link Abe, you are reliable that’s for sure, well done. Joe

        • Abe
          October 27, 2017 at 23:51

          John “There will be other wars” McCain

          • Joe Tedesky
            October 28, 2017 at 01:40

            I remember at some senate investigative committee where McCain creepily said that to his old Vietnam pal John Kerry….I think I threw a brick at the screen when that bromance was put on display.

Comments are closed.