Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Bibi’s War of Terror Agenda

By W.M. Peterson | Truth Blitzkrieg | August 5, 2024

Former U.S. Congressman Ron Paul once asserted, “There’s no history to show that Iranians are aggressive people. When is the last time they invaded a country? Over 200 years ago!”

As with many other important matters, Congressman Paul was absolutely correct; Iran has never been a warmongering state, unlike adversarial belligerents Israel and the USA.

Despite deep state meddling in the Persian nation’s affairs (e.g., the 1953 coup against Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh and the 2020 murder of Major General Qasem Soleimani), Iran has never posed the slightest threat to America. Why, then, are we being maneuvered into war when there is absolutely no national interest at stake?

It’s somewhat of a rhetorical question, I admit, since by now most people who aren’t cognitively impaired understand that Israel is trying like hell to steer America’s military into the Middle East to shed more blood on its behalf. The recent provocations towards Iran are but the latest installments in an ongoing saga we’ve witnessed play out repeatedly since 2001.

Americans should know by now what to expect. After having been led by the nose into 20 years of costly wars primarily for the enrichment and comfort of Jewish intruders squatting in the Holy Land, you’d think we might have learned a thing or two about international Zionist statecraft. It’s not as if their methods of fomenting a climate of war have changed. It’s not as if we weren’t told what to expect.

In fact we were told, by none other than former Supreme Allied Commander of NATO, General Wesley Clark.

During a 2007 interview on Amy Goodman’s political talk show Democracy Now, General Clark spoke about a detailed war agenda that was revealed to him by members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff when he visited the Pentagon just ten days after 9/11:

“One of the generals called me in. He said, ‘Sir, you’ve got to come in and talk to me a second… We’ve made the decision we’re going to war with Iraq.’ This was on or about the 20th of September. I said, ‘We’re going to war with Iraq? Why?’ He said, ‘I don’t know…I guess they don’t know what else to do.’ So I said, ‘Well, did they find some information connecting Saddam to al-Qaeda?’ He said, ‘No, no…there’s nothing new that way. They just made the decision to go to war with Iraq…I guess it’s like we don’t know what to do about terrorists, but we’ve got a good military and we can take down governments.’ And he said, ‘I guess if the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem has to look like a nail.”

A few weeks later, Clark returned to the Pentagon and met with the same man, recalling:

“I said, ‘Are we still going to war with Iraq?’ And he said, ‘Oh, it’s worse than that.’ He reached over his desk. He picked up a piece of paper and he said, ‘I just got this down from upstairs’ — meaning the Secretary of Defense’s office — ‘today.’ And he said, ‘This is a memo that describes how we’re going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran.’ I said, ‘Is it classified?’ He said, ‘Yes sir.’ I said, ‘Well don’t show it to me.’ And I saw him a year or so ago, and I said, ‘You remember that?’ He said, ‘Sir, I didn’t show you that memo! I didn’t show it to you.’”

General Clark was having these conversations at a time when the Pentagon was entirely under the thumb of Zionist Jews who had been plotting and preparing for a global war on terror for many years prior to 2001. The battle plan disclosed to Clark is not of American provenance; it is an Israeli war stratagem smuggled into our foreign policy by duplicitous foreign agents. You’ll notice that almost every country named by the general has been ‘dealt with’ militarily in one form or another in the years following 9/11, Iran being the lone exception. That status is likely to change real soon as Israel continues to escalate tensions in the region. AIPAC control over U.S. politicians ensures there won’t be so much as a whimper of protest from the ‘American Colossus’ in response to Zionist saber-rattling and increased provocations. And, rest assured, America will defend Israel to the death when the situation in the Middle East reaches critical mass. American citizens, and especially ‘conservatives,’ need to understand how they’re being emotionally manipulated into supporting yet another war that is entirely at variance with our interests and could only spell doom for our already beleaguered nation.

Netanyahu’s War on Terror

On July 24th, Benjamin ‘Bibi’ Netanyahu swaggered into the U.S. Capitol to address a joint session of Congress and to cultivate material and emotional support for his upcoming war with Iran. During the course of his nagging hour-long harangue, the Israeli prime minister received 58 standing ovations from submissive stooges on both sides of the aisle, proving once more that Pat Buchanan’s description of Capitol Hill as “Israeli-occupied territory” is as true today as it was 30 years ago.

The AIPAC-funded adulation shown this Hebrew war criminal was a sickening sight to behold. Former US Marine and United Nations weapons inspector Scott Ritter summed it up nicely:

“Israel has bragged about buying the US Congress. And this is the result, where a war    criminal—a man who has been accused of genocide, who has arrest warrants being prepared for him by the International Court of Justice, a man who heads a State that has been defined legally as an “apartheid state,” carrying out an illegal and unjust occupation and, again, genocide of the Palestinian people—has demanded an audience to the Congress that he has bought and paid for. That’s what’s happening here. We must see it in that perspective. This isn’t an honor being given to Netanyahu by the US Congress. This is the US Congress obeying the commands of the man who leads the nation that owns the US Congress.”

In one of his most memorable lines of the day, Netanyahu affirmed with a straight face, “there is no place for political violence in democracies!” (He made the comment while referring to the recent shooting at a Trump rally in Pennsylvania.) Within one week, however, Israel had assassinated Hamas political leader Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran; Hezbollah commander Fuad Shukr in Beirut; and Al Jazeera journalist Ismail al-Ghoul in Gaza. The recent killing spree occurred only three months after IDF jets bombed the Iranian embassy in Syria killing 16 people, including seven diplomats. “There is no place for political violence in democracies!” quoth the mass-murdering psychopathic Jew, who once attended a two-day anniversary celebration commemorating the Irgun’s 1946 bombing of the King David Hotel.

Bibi the Butcher, that distinguished darling of America’s political class, has spent his entire adult life promoting Israel’s War on Terror.

In 1979, he and his father Benzion partnered with Irgun terrorist-turned-prime minister Menachem Begin to organize the Jerusalem Conference on International Terrorism, a three-day event intended to “launch an international propaganda offensive to promote and exploit the issue of international terrorism,” as Philip Paull explains in his 1982 book, International Terrorism: The Propaganda War. The event was held at the Yonatan Institute, named after Netanyahu’s deceased older brother, and its purpose was to bring Western political leaders together to discuss international terrorism and the possibility of manipulating America’s military into the Middle East to wage a war on terror. The elder Netanyahu (born Mileikowsky) said in his opening address, “This conference was called to serve as a beginning of a new process — the purpose of rallying democracies of the world to a struggle against terrorism and the dangers it represents.” (George H.W. Bush spoke on the last day of the event.)

From that point on, the Western media dutifully disseminated the propaganda of the Jerusalem Conference and Benjamin Netanyahu would produce a number of books, articles and speeches throughout the 1980s and 90s promoting the doctrine of a global War on Terror. As Philip Paull wrote in 1982, “This ‘anti-terrorist’ propaganda campaign was and is being conducted in a style reminiscent of war-time ‘psychological warfare’ by journalists serving as conduits and spreaders of misinformation originating in Jerusalem.”<

Forecasting War

Netanyahu’s plan to haul America’s military into the Middle East to wage war on Israel’s enemies became a reality after September 11, 2001, a day he claimed was “very good” for Israel. (Source: New York Times, Sept. 12, 2001)

Many Americans still believe the War on Terror was launched in response to the 9/11 attacks. The fact is, however, the War on Terror was conceived many years before 2001, and the atrocities perpetrated in New York City and Washington D.C. were merely the excuse to make the war agenda operational.

In February 1982, the World Zionist Organization published ‘The Yinon Plan: A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties.’ The document was published in Hebrew but was later translated into English by the eminent professor Israel Shahak of Hebrew University. It was written by military strategist Oded Yinon and detailed a plan to break up large Arab nations like Iraq and Syria and transform them into tiny ethnic statelets that would be incapable of defending themselves against Israel’s superior military might. Yinon wrote:

“The dissolution of Syria and Iraq later on into ethnically or religiously unique areas… is Israel’s primary target on the Eastern front in the long run, while the dissolution of the military power of those states serves as the primary short term target.”

Yinon’s vision for Iraq came to fruition following the illegal American invasion, launched on the Jewish revenge holiday Purim, in 2003. Almost immediately, America’s conquering forces disbanded Iraq’s military and the entire country soon descended into civil war between competing factions of Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds. Prior to the invasion, Iraq had been a significant impediment to Israeli domination of the Middle East, which is why the Jews in control of America’s foreign policy selected it for annihilation. And, as an added bonus, there were the financial spoils of war to acquire as well. Oded Yinon: “Iraq, rich in oil on the one hand…is guaranteed as a candidate for Israel’s targets. Its dissolution is even more important for us than that of Syria.”

What Yinon described in 1982 is the Eretz Yisrael (Greater Israel) project that Americans have been fighting and dying for since 2001. America’s military is not fighting terrorism; it is reorganizing the Middle East to conform with Israel’s whims and Iran is the crown jewel. This war agenda has already bankrupted America morally and financially and has destroyed the erstwhile superpower’s standing on the world stage. As noted Middle East expert Linda S. Heard wrote in an article for Counterpunch (April 25, 2006), “Oded Yinon’s 1982 ‘Zionist Plan for the Middle East’ is in large part taking shape. Is this pure coincidence? Was Yinon a gifted psychic? Perhaps! Alternately, we in the West are victims of a long-held agenda not of our making and without doubt not in our interest.”

A Clean Break and PNAC

An updated version of The Yinon Plan was drafted for Netanyahu in 1996 during his first year as Israel’s prime minister. Titled ‘A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm,’ the document was assembled for Netanyahu by neocon hawks Richard Perle, Douglas Feith and David Wurmser. It specifically called for the removal from power of Saddam Hussein in Iraq and Bashar al-Assad in Syria and recommended military confrontations with both countries as well as with Lebanon and Iran. One year later, Perle, Feith and Wurmser would all join the newly-founded Project for a New American Century (PNAC) and continue their strategizing for Netanyahu’s War on Terror.

PNAC was an elite neoconservative think-tank founded in 1997 by influential Zionists William Kristol and Robert Kagan. The majority of the group’s membership was comprised of fanatical Jews with deep ties to the state of Israel, many of whom came to power just prior to 9/11 within the administration of George W. Bush. These include: Dov Zakheim, Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, Elliot Abrams, Richard Perle, David Frum, Robert Zoellick, David Wurmser, and the convicted felon Lewis ‘Scooter’ Libby.

The overarching philosophy of PNAC was based on the ideology of Jewish intellectual Leo Strauss. Like many of today’s neoconservatives, Strauss was an ex-Trotskyite who promoted Machiavellian tactics and the use of lies as necessary political tools while a professor of political science at the University of Chicago. Significantly, he was also a dedicated Zionist and a follower of the terrorist Ze’ev Jabotinsky. On the surface these ideological alignments appear to be contradictory, unless some understanding of the overwhelming Jewish role in both Zionism and Communism can be apprehended. Both were pioneered by the same man, Moses Hess, and both are Jewish revolutionary movements whose sole aim is to do whatever is best for Jewish interests even if it means employing seemingly opposing methods. Far-right Zionism (Jewish nationalism) and far-left Communism (Jewish internationalism) are two sides of the same shekel working in tandem as a lethal pincer for global hegemony. Attempting to explain these amorphous tendencies, Jewish historian and political theorist Murray Rothbard once noted that neoconservatives “moved from cafeteria Trotskyites to apologists for the US warfare state without missing a beat.”

In September 2000, PNAC published a 90-page document titled ‘Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategies, Forces, and Resources For a New Century.’ The document, co-authored by Rabbi Dov Zakheim, called for America to initiate a series of regime change wars in the Middle East and North Africa with an emphasis on Iraq, Syria, Libya, Lebanon and Iran. The authors of the report emphasized the importance for America to “fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars” but acknowledged that “the process of change is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event like a new Pearl Harbor.” One year to the month of the document’s publication America got what George W. Bush referred to at the time as ‘our Pearl Harbor.’

Conclusion

And so America teeters once again on the brink of war due to our fatal attraction to the Zionist state. The man who claims “there is no place for political violence in democracies” presides over a country that has made political assassinations its stock-and-trade and is undoubtedly responsible for the 9/11 attacks which activated its long-held War on Terror scheme. Speaking to an audience at Bar Ilan University in 2008, the war criminal recipient of 58 standing ovations from the US Congress reiterated his belief that the 9/11 attacks were in fact good for Israel: “We are benefitting from one thing, and that is the attack on the Twin Towers and Pentagon, and the American struggle in Iraq.” (Source: Ha’aretz, April 16, 2008)

*Nota bene: Netanyahu listed three things, not one, but to the mind of an architect of the War on Terror, all three blend seamlessly together.*

The Israeli prime minister and his minions have nothing but contempt for America. That won’t change regardless of how many standing ovations he receives from a goyische congress or how many US dollars flow into his over-stuffed war chest. In 2001, he was filmed having a conversation with Israeli settlers about ways in which he intended to undermine the US-led Oslo Peace Accords that had been signed in 1993 and 1995. During one such conversation, he crowed: “I know what America is… America is a thing you can move very easily, move it in the right direction. They won’t get in the way.” He goes on to boast about his ability to manipulate the US in the ongoing Israeli/Palestinian peace process, saying, according to the Washington Post (July 16, 2010), “They asked me before the election if I’d honor [the Oslo Accords]… I said I would, but … I’m going to interpret the accords in such a way that would allow me to put an end to this galloping forward to the ’67 borders. How did we do it? Nobody said what defined military zones were. Defined military zones are security zones; as far as I’m concerned, the entire Jordan Valley is a defined military zone. Go argue.”

Benjamin Netanyahu ladies and gentleman. A man whose military has killed upwards of over 186,000 Palestinians this year alone and has bombed hospitals, schools, churches, aid convoys and refugee camps; a man who sanctions the anal rape of prisoners; a man American politicians hail as a conquering hero; a man millions of evangelical ‘Christians’ believe we should sacrifice more of our children’s blood for.

August 15, 2024 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, False Flag Terrorism, Timeless or most popular, Wars for Israel | , , , , | Leave a comment

Cracks in the Dome: Israel’s security mirage

The Cradle | August 14, 2024

The Iron Dome, touted as Israel’s most-effective defense shield, was designed to project an image of security and technological superiority. Promoted as a cutting-edge mobile air defense system, it was intended to symbolize an impenetrable barrier safeguarding the occupation state from external threats.

However, the reality reveals a different picture: much like a child in a knight costume – impressive against plastic swords but utterly defenseless against real weapons – the Iron Dome excels mainly against the relatively crude weapons of the Palestinian resistance in Gaza.

Israel’s carefully-crafted image of its most prized defensive weapon is part of a broader branding effort, rooted in techniques pioneered by Edward Bernays. The occupation state has positioned itself as a cosmopolitan, progressive, and democratic society – in stark contrast to neighboring West Asian states, which it portrays as violent and repressive.

The Iron Dome is not just a defense system but also a psychological construct designed to reinforce the image of an invulnerable entity under constant threat from less enlightened neighbors.

A crumbling shield in the north

Despite its reputation, the Iron Dome’s performance has often fallen short. Numerous videos have surfaced showing malfunctions – the Tamir missiles performing erratic maneuvers, exploding near civilian areas, or being triggered by false alarms and causing damage to infrastructure.

These failures contrast starkly with Israel’s claims of a 90–99 percent interception rate. Professor Emeritus Theodore Postal of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) offers a vastly different assessment. “I would say that the intercept rate is at best 4 or 5 percent,” Postal said in an interview with the Boston Globe last October.

In a 2018 study published in the Journal of Global Security Studies, Michael Armstrong also questions the Iron Dome’s touted “90 to 99 percent” interception rate. For starters, he clarifies that “the interception rate is the percentage of rockets destroyed before they hit defended areas; it ignores rockets over undefended areas.”

In other words, the defense system is, from the onset, only targeting a small portion of the rockets fired. For example, Israeli officials claimed that of the approximately 1,000 projectiles fired into Israel by Hamas during November 2012’s Operation Pillar of Defense operation, Iron Dome identified two-thirds as “not posing a threat” and only intercepted 90 percent of the remaining 300 rockets. Armstrong points out further holes in the calculations of Iron Dome proponents:

The empirical analysis suggests that Iron Dome batteries intercepted less than 32 percent of all hazardous rockets during Pillar of Defense, but between 59 and 75 percent during Protective Edge … The calculations further suggest the number of rockets hitting populated areas during Pillar of Defense may have been understated. The number of threats to populated areas, on the other hand, may have been overstated. This implies that Iron Dome’s effective interception rate may have been significantly lower than reported.

The situation is particularly dire in northern occupied territories, where the town of Kiryat Shmona – a settlement once believed to be under the Iron Dome’s protection – has seen its population flee from rising threats.

Thousands of residents have abandoned their homes, exposing the vulnerabilities the Iron Dome was supposed to eliminate. With Hezbollah expanding its rules of engagement, the number of displaced persons is likely to rise, further exposing the system’s inadequacies.

As Israel desperately scrambles to expand its defense options, the new solutions prove equally flawed, leaving the population vulnerable beneath a defense system that no longer lives up to its myth. The once-vaunted shield is crumbling, and with it, the carefully constructed narrative of invincibility that has long underpinned Israel’s security strategy.

Iron Dome’s cancer curse

Beneath the surface of Israel’s Iron Dome lies a darker, more ominous reality – one that threatens not just the myth of invincibility but the lives of those operating this shield. A 2021 investigation by Yediot Ahronoth revealed serious allegations about the health risks faced by occupation soldiers stationed near the Iron Dome’s powerful radar systems.

These radar systems, nicknamed “the chipper” and “the toaster” by those who work near them, emit intense heat, turning their surroundings into an invisible crucible. Several soldiers have come forward with harrowing testimonies of life-threatening illnesses they believe are linked to their service.

Ran Mazur, who was diagnosed with bone cancer a year after his discharge, described the excruciating pain that gnawed at him during his service, pain that military doctors all too easily dismissed.

Yonatan Chaimovich likened the experience of standing near the radar to his body “boiling from the inside,” a haunting metaphor that captures the unseen dangers of their exposure. Shir Tahar and Omer Hili Levy, both of whom developed cancer after their service, are among several who believe their illnesses are inextricably linked to their time spent in the shadow of the Iron Dome.

Despite these accounts, the Israeli military has steadfastly denied any unusual increase in cancer rates among Iron Dome personnel. They claim that their extensive monitoring and safety protocols have shown no significant difference in morbidity between Iron Dome soldiers and those in other military units.

But the numbers tell a different story: in 2011, out of 240 soldiers who enlisted in three training cycles for the Iron Dome, at least six developed cancer either during or shortly after their service – a statistic that raises questions about the true cost of operating this defense system.

Since 7 October, no new investigation has ventured to uncover how many within Israel’s occupation forces have fallen victim to the silent menace of tumors during this latest surge of conflict.

High-tech illusions

If the Iron Dome was not riddled with flaws, Israeli military strategists would not be rushing to explore alternatives to maintain the state’s illusion of invulnerability. Hezbollah’s Katyusha barrages, though seemingly primitive, have been tactically deployed to overwhelm the Iron Dome and pinpoint its locations, forcing Israel to reconsider its defense strategy.

Enter the “Magen Or,” or Iron Beam – a name that translates to “Shield of Light” in Hebrew. Developed by Rafael Advanced Defense Systems, this represents the latest attempt by the occupation state to stay ahead of the Axis of Resistance and exposes Israel’s growing insecurity.

Unlike the Iron Dome, which relies on costly interceptor missiles – at around $50,000 each – the Iron Beam promises to neutralize threats using a high-powered laser – a concept that seems straight out of science fiction.

The Iron Beam, however, is still largely experimental and untested in real combat. Deployed on the Gaza front in late 2023, it has yet to prove itself as a reliable defense system in the chaos of war.

Israel’s embrace of laser technology, such as Magen Or, is part of a broader trend in the defense industry, driven not just by innovation but also by substantial aid packages from the US. These foreign funds, funneled through powerful lobbies like AIPAC and J Street, contribute to Israel’s portrayal as a technological powerhouse.

Yet, this image is less a testament to domestic ingenuity and more a product of vast financial resources often spent on costly projects that may not withstand the test of real-world conflict.

High-stake risks 

The Iron Beam’s range is limited to about 10 kilometers and falters under adverse weather conditions – an Achilles heel that could prove disastrous in a full-scale conflict. The system requires vast amounts of energy, provided by a large generator, to produce the laser beams necessary for its operation.

This logistical challenge and the necessity of maintaining sophisticated infrastructure make the Iron Beam seem doomed to fail under real combat pressures.

Tel Aviv’s shift toward advanced technologies like the Iron Beam reveals a deeper issue within its military strategy. By focusing on high-tech defenses, Israel addresses symptoms rather than the root causes of its ongoing conflict. Reliance on unproven technology carries the risk of catastrophic failure, especially when combined with Israel’s recent shift toward riskier strategies.

Adding to the complexity is the Scorpius G electronic warfare system, another high-tech solution touted by Israel. Developed by Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI), Scorpius G is designed to detect, classify, locate, and jam advanced radar systems.

However, like the Iron Beam, Scorpius G’s performance in the field remains unproven, further illustrating the precariousness of Israel’s defense posture – one that could ultimately leave it vulnerable in its rushed quest to maintain a strategic edge.

As the region’s Axis of Resistance continues its operations with precision and effectiveness, and as Israeli settlers in occupied territories face mass evacuations, the pressure on these new defense systems to deliver is immense.

Whether they will provide the promised protection or collapse under the weight of expectations remains an open question – one with potentially dire consequences for Israel’s security and stability.

August 14, 2024 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism | , , , | Leave a comment

‘Over 1,000 children and patients died due to Israel’s closure of Rafah crossing’

Palestinian Information Center – August 14, 2024

GAZA – Gaza’s Government Media Office (GMO) has said that the Israeli occupation army’s closure of the Rafah border crossing over the past 100 days has claimed the lives of more than 1,000 children, patients and wounded civilians, warning that the humanitarian disaster in the war-ravaged costal enclave has deepened.

“The occupation army continues to close the Rafah border crossing between Palestine and Egypt for the 100th day running after burning and bulldozing it and putting it out of service,” GMO said in a statement on Wednesday.

“This Israeli closure of the crossing continues to take place as the humanitarian tragedy has deepened at all levels and affected all aspects of life,” GMO added.

GMO condemned the ongoing closure of the crossing as a “crime” and an “obvious legal violation of the international law, the international humanitarian law and all international conventions.”

GMO accused the Israeli occupation of preventing the entry of all sorts of humanitarian aid into the Gaza Strip, including vital medical needs, which seriously worsened the health and humanitarian situation.

GMO also accused the Israeli occupation of seeking to destroy Gaza’s health system in its entirety and using the starvation policy as a tool for political pressure.

August 14, 2024 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, War Crimes | , , , | Leave a comment

Israeli regime’s actions against civilians ‘blatant example of terrorism’: Iran envoy

Iran’s permanent representative to the UN Office in Geneva, Ali Bahraini.
Press TV | August 14, 2024

Iran’s permanent representative to the United Nations Office in Geneva has called for Israeli institutions to be recognized as “terrorists,” stressing that the regime’s inhumane actions against Palestinian civilians constitute “a clear example of terrorism.”

Ali Bahraini made the appeal in three separate letters to UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Turk, the UN special rapporteur on extra-judicial summary or arbitrary executions, Morris Tidball-Binz as well as UN Special Rapporteur on human rights in the occupied Palestinian territories Francesca Albanese on Wednesday.

According to Article 2.1 of the international convention to prevent the financing of terrorism, the institutions of “the Zionist regime” must be identified as terrorists, he said, adding that “the actions carried out by the Israeli regime against civilians and Palestinian areas are a clear example of terrorism.”

Bahraini also noted that from Iran’s point of view, Hamas is “a liberation organization” that fights for the freedom and independence of Palestine.

Therefore, he said, the assassination of Hamas leaders is aimed at undermining the morale of the Palestinian people in their struggle to end the occupation and achieve the right to self-determination.

The Iranian diplomat also emphasized that by eliminating the Palestinian leaders, Israel seeks to destroy the Palestinian political identity and the inalienable right of the Palestinian people to have an independent state.

He further referred to the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice (ICC), which recognizes the right of Palestinians to self-determination, and described any action that violates this right as illegal.

Elsewhere in his remarks, Bahraini strongly denounced as “a gross violation of international law” the assassination of Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh in the capital Tehran.

He also urged UN officials to condemn the assassination decisively and to document it in their future reports.

The top Iranian diplomat also stressed the need for more efforts to achieve justice for the Palestinian people and to hold the Israeli regime accountable for its crimes.

Haniyeh, who was in Tehran to attend the swearing-in ceremony of Iran’s newly-elected President Masoud Pezeshkian, alongside other Axis of Resistance leaders, was martyred in an attack early on July 31.

Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei has warned the Israeli regime of a “harsh response” for Haniyeh’s assassination, calling it the Islamic Republic’s duty to avenge the Palestinian resistance leader’s blood.

August 14, 2024 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, War Crimes | , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Major US academic group approves boycott of Israel in a historic U-turn

MEMO | August 13, 2024

In a major U-turn, the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) has reversed its long-standing opposition to academic boycotts in the wake of last month’s International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruling that accused Israel of practicing apartheid. The ICJ’s decision, coupled with its ongoing investigation into allegations of genocide by Israel in Gaza and the potential for Israeli leaders to face arrest warrants from the International Criminal Court (ICC), appears to have prompted the AAUP to reconsider its long-standing position on academic boycotts.

The AAUP, a union dedicated to safeguarding academic freedom with 500 chapters on campuses across the US, approved a new statement marking a departure from the organisation’s previous stance articulated in its 2006 report “On Academic Boycotts”. Since its founding in 1915, the AAUP has helped to shape American higher education by developing the standards and procedures that maintain quality in education and academic freedom in this country’s colleges and universities.

AAUP’s new policy acknowledges that academic boycotts can be legitimate responses to certain circumstances. The statement reads, “Academic boycotts are not in themselves violations of academic freedom; rather, they can be considered legitimate tactical responses to conditions that are fundamentally incompatible with the mission of higher education.”

Crucially, the AAUP now holds that “individual faculty members and students should be free to weigh, assess, and debate the specific circumstances giving rise to calls for systematic academic boycotts and to make their own choices regarding their participation in them.” The organisation argues that to do otherwise would contravene academic freedom.

The statement is careful to delineate the boundaries of acceptable boycott practices. It explicitly states that academic boycotts should not involve political or religious litmus tests, nor should they target individual scholars engaged in ordinary academic practices. Instead, boycotts should “target only institutions of higher education that themselves violate academic freedom or the fundamental rights upon which academic freedom depends.”

While the AAUP’s statement does not specifically mention Israel, the timing of this policy change, coming after the ICJ’s ruling and amidst multiple investigations into Israel’s military campaign in Gaza, which has killed nearly 40,000 Palestinians, mainly women and children, strongly suggests that the situation in the besieged enclave has played a major role in prompting this reconsideration.

This policy shift by the AAUP aligns more closely with actions taken by other academic associations in recent years. For instance, the American Studies Association approved measures to boycott Israeli universities a decade ago, and the American Anthropological Association followed suit last year.

August 13, 2024 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Solidarity and Activism, War Crimes | , , | Leave a comment

CAIR files lawsuit against FBI, US govt agencies over blacklisting of Palestinian-Americans

MEMO | August 13, 2024

An American Muslim advocacy group has filed a lawsuit against the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) and the leaders of other United States government agencies after two Palestinian-American men were blacklisted due to their pro-Palestine activism.

On Monday, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) filed the lawsuit in response to what it called a discriminatory and racist placement of two Palestinian Americans – Osama Abu Irshaid and Mustafa Zeidan – on a watch list by US federal authorities.

According to the lawsuit, Irshaid, the Executive Director of an organisation named American Muslims for Palestine, travelled to Qatar from the US in late May and returned in early June. Upon his return, federal agents forced him to undergo extra screening and questioning – reportedly focusing on his activism and organising against Israel’s offensive on Gaza – while seizing his phone, which has not yet been returned.

The California-based Zeidan, meanwhile, who often visits his ailing mother in Jordan, was not allowed to board a flight on his way to the country earlier this year, with authorities later informing him that he was placed on the no-fly list.

Filed in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, the lawsuit stated that “CAIR is challenging the mistreatment of these Palestinian-American activists on constitutional grounds”, asserting that their blacklisting is based on discrimination and racism rather than actual criminal or national security concerns. “Neither Dr. Abu Irshaid nor Mr. Zeidan have ever been charged or convicted of a violent crime,” it said.

Aside from the FBI, other defendants named in the lawsuit are the leaders of government agencies, including the State Department and the Homeland Security Department.

August 13, 2024 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , , , | Leave a comment

Iran: E3 demands are public support for Israeli crimes

Al Mayadeen | August 13, 2024

Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Nasser Kanaani responded to the E3’s (UK, France, Germany) statement on Tuesday, underscoring that Iran is “steadfast and resolute in exercising its right  to protect its national security and territorial integrity” and “does not seek permission from any external party.”

In a press statement, Kanaani added that the European Troika’s demand for Iran not to respond to the “Israel’s” and punish it, “a crude demand that lacks any political logic and contradicts international laws and resolutions.”

He emphasized that the European trio’s statement reflects a public endorsement of the Zionist entity’s crimes and regional terrorism. He added that “if the European Trio genuinely seeks to promote peace in the region, it must, at the very least, condemn the Zionist entity’s actions and its genocidal activities in Gaza.”

Kanaani also pointed out that “the indifference of Western countries towards the crimes of the Israeli entity and its ongoing genocide of the defenseless Palestinian people, and the failure to hold it accountable, has encouraged it to escalate its atrocities.”

He explained that “Germany, France, and Britain have not taken any measures to halt the Zionist entity’s ongoing brutal crimes, and international organizations have similarly failed to deter these actions,” stressing that “both the West and the Security Council must take decisive responsibility to stop the severe Israeli atrocities in Gaza.”

On Monday, the leaders of France, Germany, and the United Kingdom issued a joint statement in which  they called on Iran and its allies, likely the Ansar Allah movement in Yemen and the Hezbollah Resistance movement in Lebanon, to refrain from taking any actions that would “further escalate regional tensions and jeopardize the opportunity to agree on a ceasefire and the release of hostages.”

The statement held them responsible “for actions that jeopardize this opportunity for peace and stability” while disregarding the actions committed by “Israel”

August 13, 2024 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Progressive Hypocrite | , , , , , , | Leave a comment

I reported a piece for the New York Times on antisemitism. I found a major error, but the Times didn’t care.

An elected official alleged an antisemitic break-in. Police say it didn’t happen.

Pro-Palestinian protest in Teaneck, New Jersey outside Congregation Keter Torah on March 10, 2024. Photo: Fatih Aktas/Anadolu via Getty.
By Arvind Dilawar | Drop Site News | August 8, 2024

As a freelance journalist, I contributed to a New York Times article earlier this year about an anti-Zionist demonstration in Teaneck, New Jersey, a township just outside of New York City. Hundreds of demonstrators had gathered to protest an event organized by Israeli realtors marketing properties in the occupied Palestinian territory of the West Bank—Israeli settlements widely regarded as illegal under international law. Amid Israel’s ongoing genocide in the Gaza Strip, the Times article described the protest as contributing to escalating fear and tension in otherwise peaceable Teaneck. As a pivotal example of alleged antisemitic activity in the area, my co-author John Leland, a Times staff reporter, quoted township councilmember Hillary Goldberg, who claimed that her home had been “broken into” as part of a string of abuse in response to her vocal support of Israel and her Jewish background.

“I have been threatened; I had a box truck with my picture on it and the words ‘liar liar’ driven around town; my house has been broken into; I have received antisemitic messages,” Goldberg told Leland, adding: “I have never felt so afraid to be Jewish as now.”

It was an explosive allegation—a racially motivated break-in at the home of an elected official—and also a brand new one. Prior to the Times coverage, Goldberg was featured in an article from The Intercept about anti-Zionist organizing at Teaneck High School being suppressed by local politicians, including the councilmember. According to The Intercept, Goldberg appears to have collaborated with U.S. Representative Josh Gottheimer to have the entire Teaneck school district investigated by the U.S. Department of Education for alleged antisemitism in retaliation for students organizing for a ceasefire in Gaza last November.

There is no mention of a break-in at Goldberg’s home in The Intercept article—nor coverage of it elsewhere, either in the news or social media. Goldberg’s comments to the Times were the first, and thus far only, mention of the incident anywhere.

The way the reporting and editing process unfolded next was a window into how politically convenient claims make their way into the paper of record without corroboration—and stay in despite contradictory evidence.

When I shared my concerns regarding Goldberg’s apparent political motivations as laid out in the Intercept article, as well as the lack of coverage of this otherwise extremely newsworthy allegation, Leland assured me that the councilmember had filed a police report, meaning her story checked out. But when I requested the report, he told me he hadn’t actually seen it, only been assured by Goldberg that she had filed it. The story went to press without further verification of her claim.

I was eventually able to obtain the police reports myself via an Open Public Records Act request, and they revealed that the police had determined no break-in, nor any other crime, had been committed. According to the first police report, dated February 10, six officers responded to a call at Goldberg’s publicly listed address because, according to the complainant, “Lights basement were on // were not on when left // back door was locked when got home unlocked.” The half-dozen officers checked the property but found no sign of forced entry nor anything else amiss. Two subsequent checks of the area found nothing further, and a follow-up investigation by a sergeant two days later ended the same.

“The sergeant did respond to the residence a couple days after the initial incident was reported and spoke with the complainant,” Seth Kriegel, deputy chief of the Teaneck Police Department, reiterated to me. “And based on speaking with her and his investigation, he determined that there was no burglary that had occurred—or attempted burglary.”

Teaneck police determined that no crime had been committed at Goldberg’s property, according to Kriegel. He also noted that subsequent checks were requested by the complainant, a dozen of which were conducted before the publication of the Times article, and none found anything to report.

Believing a correction to the Times story was in order—or at least an update, to give readers a fuller picture—I shared the police reports with Leland—who told me that he had already gotten them and, despite the explicit contradictions, no correction would be issued. When presented with the police reports, management at the Times also declined to reconcile them with its coverage. Instead, managing director of external communications, Charlie Stadtlander, said in a statement that the article was “thoroughly reported, fact-checked and edited, and we stand behind its publication.” Goldberg did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

The Times has come under fire in recent months for refusing to issue corrections to several other articles about Israel and Palestine.

Perhaps most significantly, the Times continues to defend an article accusing Palestinian militants of committing “systematic” sexual violence against Israelis on October 7, despite criticism from professors of journalism, cited by The Washington Post, and others regarding significant issues with the story and its reporting. The Times was forced to issue an “update” (rather than a correction, as would be stipulated by standard journalistic practice) to address contradictory evidence that later emerged.

Anti-Zionist groups such as Writers Against the War on Gaza and publications such as Mondoweiss have also criticized the Times for minimizing Israel’s role in the ongoing famine in the Gaza Strip, casting the Israeli genocide as a feminist endeavor and largely ignoring the killings of more than a hundred fellow journalists in Gaza.

Such apparent contradictions in the Times’ coverage of Israel and Palestine led to significant internal dissent at the publication. A planned podcast episode on the aforementioned story about sexual violence had to be scrapped after producers raised questions about its reliability. At least four other contributors have also resigned or severed relationships with the Times for similar reasons, according to the outlet Them.

Unfortunately the Times is not alone in breaking with standard journalistic ethics when it comes to covering Israel and Palestine. In a decade of being a full-time freelance journalist, I have personally never come up against the kind of opposition I’ve experienced trying to cover the reverberations of the ongoing Israeli genocide in Gaza.

In December, an editor at The Smart Set, an arts and culture magazine that I contributed to for five years without issue, accepted a pitch of mine on decolonization—only to have a higher-up summarily reject the draft, without edits, notes, or payment.

In April, Times Union, the regional affiliate of Hearst Newspapers in Upstate New York, published an article that I had written about local businesses being harassed for supporting a ceasefire in Gaza. It was online for less than 24 hours before the editor-in-chief interrupted his own travel plans to force the newsroom to take it down. There were no factual errors in the article nor procedural errors in its reporting. Rather, it was Times Union that ran afoul of standard practice by refusing to issue a retraction acknowledging, much less justifying, their decision.

These experiences, as well as mine at The Times, could individually be written off as little more than professional setbacks, especially when compared to the unimaginable suffering in Gaza, where Israeli forces have killed more than 39,000 Palestinians, including at least 15,000 children, according to Al Jazeera at the time of this writing. These otherwise minor journalistic malpractices, however, should be understood as coming together to form a web, like the Kevlar-tough strands of spider’s silk, with the fates of those Palestinians caught in the middle.

August 12, 2024 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Fake News, Mainstream Media, Warmongering | , , | Leave a comment

Hamas demands return to agreed-upon ceasefire deal, calls new talks ‘cover for Israeli massacres’

The Cradle | August 12, 2024

Hamas has called on mediators in the ceasefire and prisoner exchange talks to present a plan to implement the proposal agreed to by the resistance movement in early July and to oblige Israel to do so as well.

“We demand that the mediators submit a plan to implement what they presented to the movement and that we agreed to on 2 July 2024, based on Biden’s vision and the Security Council resolution, and oblige the occupation to do so, instead of going to more rounds of negotiations or new proposals that provide cover for the occupation’s aggression and give it more time to perpetuate the war of genocide against our people,” Hamas said on 11 August.

The Hamas statement also said Israel’s assassination of political bureau chief Ismail Haniyeh and the continuation of its massacres against civilians in Gaza prove its intentions of preventing a ceasefire deal.

Senior Hamas official Osama Hamdan told Al-Araby on Sunday that if there is no real pressure by the US president on Israel, “he does not have anything to bet on to make the [upcoming] negotiations successful].”

He added that Washington falsely guaranteed Israel’s acceptance of the proposal presented by Joe Biden, adding that “it is time” to oblige Israel to do so.

Biden unveiled a permanent ceasefire plan in late May, claiming Israel had also agreed to the proposal. Yet Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu remained insistent on having the right to continue the war and pursue Hamas after the captives’ exchange, a position which he has stuck to until now.

US and Qatari mediators eventually updated the Biden plan and presented it to Hamas in early July. The resistance movement proposed amendments to the revised plan on 3 July, which Israeli sources said were positive and could enable a deal to pass.

Yet Netanyahu’s position on pursuing the war’s goals, despite talks for a permanent ceasefire, obstructed the negotiations and prevented an agreement from being reached.

Israel had also rejected a proposal agreed to by Hamas on 6 May.

“The plan I put together, endorsed by the G7, endorsed by the UN Security Council, et cetera, is still viable. And I’m working literally every single day – and my whole team – to see to it that it doesn’t escalate into a regional war. But it easily can,” Biden said on 11 August.

Washington has been beefing up its presence across the region to defend Israel from the Resistance Axis, which has vowed to respond to the recent Israeli attacks on Tehran and Beirut.

Hamas’ statement came two days after Netanyahu’s office said Israel would send mediators to upcoming ceasefire talks, scheduled for 15 August, “to finalize the details of the implementation of the agreement framework.”

In a statement on Monday, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) said, “It is unreasonable to hold any negotiations while the occupation’s crimes continue in shelters, schools, displacement tents, and hospitals.”

New negotiations are “meaningless as long as the aggression government and war criminals have not provided clear and declared approval of the formulation that was originally presented by them and adopted by US President Joe Biden,” the PFLP added.

August 12, 2024 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, War Crimes | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Syria’s Arab tribes revolt: US bases and allies become prime targets

The current uprising in Syria’s Deir Ezzor represents the growing armed resistance of local Arab tribes against US-backed Kurdish forces who control their land and resources – potentially opening up a new front for West Asia’s Axis of Resistance

By Haidar Mustafa | The Cradle | August 12, 2024

On 7 August, a coalition of Syrian Arab tribes recaptured several key towns from US-backed Kurdish forces in the eastern countryside of Syria’s Deir Ezzor governorate. These tribesmen, led by Sheikh Ibrahim al-Hafl, launched the largest assault on Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) sites since the onset of the Arab tribal rebellion against the US-backed militia last year.

The renewed offensive has also reignited popular resistance against the US presence in the region, tracing its origins to the SDF leadership coup against the Deir Ezzor Military Council, which led to the arrest and removal of Arab leader Ahmed al-Khabil, also known as Abu Khawla.

The spark of resistance 

In August 2023, the SDF’s arrest of the Deir Ezzor Military Council leader triggered a tribal uprising across several villages under SDF control – from Al-Baghouz to Al-Shuhail. This uprising quickly evolved into a more organized resistance when Sheikh Hafl announced in an audio statement the formation of a military command for the “Army of Tribes and Clans in the countryside of Deir Ezzor” last September.

Clashes along the Euphrates River in Deir Ezzor governorate

Since then, Hafl has become a constant menace to the SDF, with accusations flying that the Syrian government and Iran supported him. It is an obvious attempt to discredit the Arab tribal movement, which is genuinely focused on liberating land and reclaiming resources.

The SDF prematurely announced the “failure” of the attack, which it claims was carried out “upon the orders” of Hossam Louka, head of Syria’s General Intelligence Directorate. In a statement posted on Facebook, the SDF said:

Our sweep campaign continues against the remnants of the Syrian regime-backed mercenaries who attacked the villages of Al-Dhiban, Al-Latwa, and Abu Hamam.

US occupation forces have established prominent bases at the Al-Omar and Conoco oil fields, in a region largely inhabited by Arab communities who have long been persecuted by the SDF. When the US failed to control and co-opt these tribes into a loyal organization, it sought to instead characterize them as a threat aligned with Syrian and Iranian interests.

This narrative is consistent with the approach of the US project and its allies in the SDF, who seek to suppress any resistance movements that challenge their agenda and practices, including the theft of Syrian oil and wheat.

‘Iranian-backed’ tribal resistance 

Sheikh Hafl called upon the tribes and clans, especially those beyond Syria’s borders, to support the resistance, leading to increased and sustained attacks against the SDF. The tribal resistance, primarily rooted in Dhiban, spread throughout the towns and cities east of the Euphrates, turning them into a continuous conflict zone.

This resistance posed a significant threat to US interests, with the so-called “Operation Inherent Resolve” reporting in its October–December 2023 quarterly update to the US Congress that tribal fighters have evolved into a “full-fledged resistance movement.”

These fighters, the report said, receive “explicit support from the Syrian regime and its Iranian allies on the western side of the Euphrates River, where resistance fighters resupply, rearm, and launch attacks across the river in SDF-controlled villages on the eastern side.”

Recognizing this threat, the US aircraft recently launched several raids targeting the Arab tribal forces to prevent them from advancing towards their bases or achieving their goal of expelling the SDF from “Arab land.”

Gaining ground as SDF lays siege to Hasakah

After a year of limited confrontations and small operations, Hafl re-issued the call to confront what he called the “Qandil” gangs. This announcement coincided with the launch of a violent attack by Arab tribal forces on SDF positions in the cities and towns of Deir Ezzor.

During this assault, tribal forces managed to cross into and expand control over areas including Dhiban, Al-Busaira, Ibriha, Al-Hariji, Al-Tayyaneh, Abu Hamam, Gharanij, Al-Kishkiya, and the entire riverbed. The SDF, in turn, responded by imposing a siege on the residents of Hasakah and Qamishli within Syrian government-controlled areas, cutting off supplies of flour, food, and water – a tactic the SDF frequently uses to pressure Damascus.

Insiders believe that the SDF is leading Hasakah into the unknown, as the imposition of a siege policy could trigger local confrontations within the city. This will not, however, deter the tribal “resistance” from continuing its project aimed at pressuring the US occupation and its Kurdish militias.

Notably, a Syrian-based Russian delegation arrived at Qamishli airport before Friday afternoon and held several meetings to mediate the crisis. According to Syrian daily Al-Watan, these discussions did not yield positive results after the SDF leaders rejected mediation and insisted on continuing the siege of Hasakah’s population.

Serving geopolitical goals 

The US occupation of the Jazira region and the establishment of more than 20 American bases was not primarily to combat terrorism, as claimed by the international coalition, but rather because “ISIS” served as the pretext for strengthening the US obstruction of the strategic land links between the eastern Mediterranean, via Central Asia, to China, and to Iran on the Persian Gulf. The US further seeks to prevent the development of close ties between the Syrian and Iraqi arenas.

Political affairs writer and researcher Dr Ahmed al-Druze explains to The Cradle why the US continues to provide unlimited support for the SDF in opposition to the region’s inhabitants.

The American occupation will remain as long as it has the ability to do so, and it deals with the Arab tribes from this perspective.

Druze believes that the events unfolding today in Syria’s eastern region are a result of the repercussions of the Palestinian resistance’s Operation Al-Aqsa Flood and the broader spillover of conflicts across West Asia.

He highlights that, while some may view the recent developments as a local conflict – either between Arab clans or between Arab clans and Kurds – the reality suggests otherwise, as the clans find common cause and common targets with the Axis of Resistance.

Even if the situation temporarily stabilizes, with tribal forces retreating and the SDF lifting the siege on Hasakah and Qamishli, Druze believes the underlying international conflict will likely resurface, potentially tied to events in occupied Palestine and Gaza.

Though it may be premature to speak of a US existential predicament in the Jazira region, given that its losses currently remain limited, writer and political analyst Khaled al-Miftah argues that the US faces growing popular rejection and resistance.

The region is increasingly aware of Washington’s goals – to establish a separatist Kurdish entity and exploit Syria’s resources. Al-Miftah tells The Cradle that the US is beginning to feel the effects of the Turkish–Syrian rapprochement, which, if achieved under Russian auspices, could spell the end of the SDF’s separatist ambitions. Consequently, the US has begun to create obstacles to prevent this outcome.

Part of the region’s resistance 

Despite the end of large-scale military conflict in most of Syria years ago, the eastern region remains embroiled in tension and ongoing strife. Armed confrontations between the SDF and pro-Turkish factions in the north continue, while the war with Arab tribal forces east of the Euphrates enters a new chapter, driven by different calculations than in past battles.

The tribes are now determined to expand their operations and have increased their readiness. US bases have become permanent targets for resistance forces on both the Syrian and Iraqi sides, with drones and rockets frequently striking occupation bases in the Omar and Conoco oil fields. Meanwhile, the tribes have expanded their control over villages that serve as the first line of defense for the SDF around US bases.

Meanwhile, with the SDF’s release of hundreds of ISIS fighters from prisons in July, ISIS continues its terrorist attacks in the region, despite the international coalition’s previous claims of having eliminated the group’s presence. ISIS cells periodically launch assaults on Syrian army positions and their allies in the Resistance Axis.

The Jazira region has essentially become a battleground where the US now reaps consequences from its forced occupation of Syrian territory, disregarding the impact on Syrian territorial unity and the strife it sows among the population.

The eastern region remains trapped in a cycle of escalation, with local and international actors involved, while the Syrian people bear the brunt, suffering both from ongoing violence and the theft of their resources.

August 12, 2024 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Illegal Occupation, Wars for Israel | , , , , | Leave a comment

Iran finesses its deterrence strategy

By  M. K. BHADRAKUMAR  | Indian Punchline | August 12, 2024 

The latest Israeli spin has it that Iran cannot make up its mind whether to retaliate or not for the killing of Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh on July 28 while on a visit to Tehran for the inaugural of President Masoud Pezeshkian. 

The hypothesis here is that there must be a standoff between Pezeshkian and hardliners of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) with the new president pushing back against any aggressive strategy against Israel. 

Prima facie, it is a ridiculous spin. But Iran rebutted it, nonetheless, with the Acting Foreign Minister Ali Bagheri Kani stating as recently as on Saturday night that Tehran “will make the aggressor Israeli regime pay the price for its aggression in a legitimate and decisive action.” Those were carefully chosen words. 

But how come Iran didn’t act for a fortnight already? Several factors are in play here. First, Pezeshkian has not yet formed his government. He submitted his list of proposed ministers to the Parliament for approval only yesterday. The executive branch of the government is carrying on with day-to-day functioning.  

Nonetheless, according to Russian media, Pezeshkian did speak about Iran’s retaliatory strike against Israel at a meeting with the visiting Russian Security Council Secretary Sergei Shoigu on July 5 in Tehran. 

That said, do not rule out that there could be some calibration in the timing. After all, Israel is in panic and reports say people stay awake at night fearing Iranian attack. According to IRNA, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, for all his bravado, evacuated four of Israel’s important intelligence and security bases in Tel Aviv. 

Second, Iran will not act as “spoiler” when regional states and the US  are pulling all stops to pick up the threads of the Gaza ceasefire talks between Hamas and Israel. The fact that Israel agreed to the talks on Thursday suggests that Netanyahu also sees advantages in returning to the negotiating table. 

Of course, Iran will also be carefully weighing the scale of its attack on Israel. After all, Haniyeh was killed in a covert operation in which there was no Iranian casualty. 

However, the clincher is going to be the progress in the upcoming talks. Iran may altogether postpone the operation if the Israeli side gives guarantees at the talks not to invade Lebanon and withdraws troops from the Gaza Strip. 

Tehran could potentially reconsider its position if a radical change occurs in the situation in the region following the conclusion of a truce between Hamas and Israel. Expectations are running high. And, make no mistake, Tehran has a much closer equation with Yahya Sinwar than it had with Haniyeh.  

Therefore, the high-stakes diplomacy this week leading to the talks scheduled for Thursday to secure a hostage and ceasefire deal in Gaza becomes an inflection point. 

Iran’s UN mission in New York said in a statement on Friday, “Our priority is to establish a lasting ceasefire in Gaza. Any agreement accepted by Hamas will also be recognised by us.” The statement reiterated Iran’s right to self-defence against Israel but also added, “However, we hope that our response will be timed and conducted in a manner not to the detriment of the potential ceasefire.”

Tehran is intensely conscious that the outcome of the Hamas-Israel talks (with the participation of CIA Director William Burns) in terms of the release of American hostages is the stuff of Joe Biden’s presidential legacy as much as it holds the potential to burnish the prospects of the Democratic Party candidate Kamala Harris in the November election. 

Jordan is acting as go-between to enable Washington and Tehran to  sensitise each other their respective problematic borderlines. Jordanian Foreign Minister Ayman Safadi visited Tehran on August 4 for talks with Ali Bagheri. They met again on the sideline of the OIC extraordinary meeting in Jeddah on August 7 (which was by the way, a diplomatic coup for Tehran.) In between, Biden spoke with King Abdullah of Jordan. 

The White House readout said Biden and Abdullah “discussed their efforts to de-escalate regional tensions, including through an immediate ceasefire and hostage release deal.  The President thanked His Majesty for his friendship, and affirmed unwavering US support for Jordan as a partner and ally in promoting regional peace and security.” 

Meanwhile, Biden is using all channels available to moderate Iran’s attack on Israel. The Americans have also openly dissociated themselves from the killing of Haniyeh. They have reportedly conveyed to Tehran that an escalation is fraught with the risk of a US-Iran conflict, which is avoidable. 

Finally, in the range of discourses over Iran’s retaliation, what is overlooked generally is that Iranians invariably have a strategy,  unlike Israelis who resort to knee-jerk reactions. Therefore, the ‘big picture’ becomes important here. 

Iran is not looking for war, especially when it has done exceedingly well so far to cut losses and turn the table on Israel in a cost-effective manner. Israel’s international image is in the mud and not all the freshwater in the Sea of Galilee can wash off the filth. 

Iran’s number one priority will be to have the western sanctions removed. Supreme Leader Khamenei’s deal with Pezeshkian quintessentially narrows down to improving the economy by getting rid of sanctions and making it possible for Iran to gain its rightful place in the international order by using its vast resources optimally. 

All major pronouncements by Pezeshkian have signalled his prioritisation of Iran’s relations with the West. Quite obviously, Pezeshkian is walking a tight rope, as Javad Zarif’s announcement of his resignation as the president’s deputy for strategic affairs shows. Zarif is reportedly peeved that the steering committee responsible for candidate selection picked only three out of the 19 names he had proposed for the cabinet posts!

Be that as it may, Abbas Araghchi, introduced as the new Minister of Foreign Affairs, had served for 8 years as the deputy to Zarif during Hassan Rouhani’s presidency, playing a key role in the nuclear negotiations (JCPOA) with the Obama administration. The European powers see Araghchi as a ‘moderate.’ Indeed, he makes an effective interlocutor for Tehran in western capitals — and it is the clearest signal so far that Iran’s foreign policy trajectory is leaning toward constructive engagement of the West. 

Smart thinking involves the brain getting precedence over brawn. That is where Iran scores over the die-hard Zionists in Tel Aviv who are still wallowing in the culture of the Nakba. 

Iran shrewdly assessed at a very early stage that contradictions were inevitable in Biden-Netanyahu equations post-October 7 and the Greater Israel agenda and the US’ Indo-Pacific strategy are pulling in opposite directions. 

Equally, Iran has drawn the correct conclusions out of the standoff in April where it displayed its formidable military capability to inflict pain on Israel while also prompting the US to prevail upon the latter not to react! In the entire chronicle of US-Iran tango since 1979, such a thing never happened before.

Why should Tehran give up that pathway leading to the rose garden? For sure, Tehran will inflict even greater pain on Israel than in April. But, fundamentally, the 900-pound gorilla in Tel Aviv has to be tamed with a smart admixture of hard and soft power — and, it also involves the West. And to that end, Iran will restrain itself and remain a nuclear threshold state. 

August 12, 2024 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism | , , , , | Leave a comment

“An Intricate Fabric of Bad Actors Working Hand-in-Hand” – So is war Inevitable?

By Alastair Crooke | Strategic Culture Foundation | August 12, 2024

Walter Kirn, an American novelist and cultural critic, in his 2009 memoir, Lost in the Meritocracy, described how, after a sojourn at Oxford, he came to be a member of ‘the class that runs things’ – the one that “writes the headlines, and the stories under them”. It was the account of a middle-class kid from Minnesota trying desperately to fit into the élite world, and then to his surprise, realising that he didn’t want to fit in at all.

Now 61, Kirn has a newsletter on Substack and co-hosts a lively podcast devoted in large part to critiquing ‘establishment liberalism’. His contrarian drift has made him more vocal about his distrust of élite institutions – as he wrote in 2022:

“For years now, the answer, in every situation—‘Russiagate,’ COVID, Ukraine—has been more censorship, more silencing, more division, more scapegoating. It’s almost as if these are goals in themselves – and the cascade of emergencies mere excuses for them. Hate is always the way,”

Kirn’s politics, a friend of his suggested, was “old-school liberal,” underscoring that it was the other ‘so-called liberals’ who had changed: “I’ve been told repeatedly in the last year that free speech is a right-wing issue; I wouldn’t call [Kirn] Conservative. I would just say he’s a free-thinker, nonconformist, iconoclastic”, the friend said.

To understand Kirn’s contrarian turn – and to make sense of today’s form of American politics – it is necessary to understand one key term. It is not found in standard textbooks, but is central to the new playbook of power: the “whole of society”.

“The term was popularised roughly a decade ago by the Obama administration, which liked that its bland, technocratic appearance could be used as cover to erect a mechanism for a governance ‘whole-of-society’ approach” – one that asserts that as actors – media, NGOs,corporations and philanthropist institutions – interact with public officials to play a critical role not just in setting the public agenda, but in enforcing public decisions.

Jacob Siegel has explained the historical development of the ‘whole of society’ approach during the Obama administration’s attempt to pivot in the ‘war on terror’ to what it called ‘CVE’ – countering violent extremism. The idea was to surveil the American people’s online behaviour in order to identify those who may, at some unspecified time in the future, ‘commit a crime’.

Inherent to the concept of the potential ‘violent extremist’ who has, as yet, committed no crime, is a weaponised vagueness: “A cloud of suspicion that hangs over anyone who challenges the prevailing ideological narratives”.

“What the various iterations of this whole-of-society approach have in common is their disregard for democratic process and the right to free association – their embrace of social media surveillance, and their repeated failure to deliver results …”.

Aaron Kheriaty writes:

“More recently, the whole of society political machinery facilitated the overnight flip from Joe Biden to Kamala Harris, with news media and party supporters turning on a dime when instructed to do so—democratic primary voters ‘be damned’. This happened not because of the personalities of the candidates involved, but on the orders of party leadership. The actual nominees are fungible, and entirely replaceable, functionaries, serving the interests of the ruling party … The party was delivered to her because she was selected by its leaders to act as its figurehead. That real achievement belongs not to Harris, but to the party-state”.

What has this to do with Geo-politics – and whether there will be war between Iran and Israel?

Well, quite a lot. It is not just western domestic politics that has been shaped by the Obama CVE totalising mechanics. The “party-state” machinery (Kheriaty’s term) for geo-politics has also been co-opted:

“To avoid the appearance of totalitarian overreach in such efforts”, Kheriaty argues,“the party requires an endless supply of causes … that party officers use as pretexts to demand ideological alignment across public and private sector institutions. These causes come in roughly two forms: the urgent existential crisis (examples include COVID and the much-hyped threat of Russian disinformation) – and victim groups supposedly in need of the party’s protection”.

“It’s almost as if these are goals in themselves – and the cascade of emergencies mere excuses for them. Hate is always the way”, Kirn underlines.

Just to be clear, the implication is that all geo-strategic critics of the party-state’s ideological alignment must be jointly and collectively treated as potentially dangerous extremists. Russia, China, Iran and North Korea therefore are bound together as presenting a single obnoxious extremism that stands in opposition to ‘Our Democracy’; versus ‘Our Free Speech’ and versus ‘Our Expert Consensus’.

So, if the move to war against one extremist (i.e. versus Iran) is ‘acclaimed’ by 58 standing ovations in the joint session of Congress last month, then further debate is unnecessary – any more than Kamala Harris’ nomination as Presidential candidate needs to be endorsed through primary voting:

Candidate Harris told hecklers on Wednesday, chanting about genocide in Gaza, ‘to pipe down’ – unless they “want Trump to win”. Tribal norms must not be challenged (even for genocide).

Sandra Parker, Chairwoman of the political advocacy arm for the three thousand members of Christians United for Israel (CUFI) was advising on correct talking points, the Times of Israel reports:

“The rise of Republican far right-wingers who spurn decades of (bi-partisan) pro-Israel orthodoxies, favouring isolationism and resurrecting anti-Jewish tropes is alarming pro-Israel evangelicals and their Jewish allies… The break with decades of assertive foreign policy was evident last year when Sen. Josh Hawley derided the “liberal empire” that he dismissively characterised as bipartisan “Neoconservatives on the right, and liberal globalists on the left: Together they make up what you might call the uniparty, the DC establishment that transcends all changing administrations””.

At the CUFI talking points conference, the fear of increased isolation on the Right was the issue:

“You’re going to see that adversaries will see the U.S. as in retreat” – should isolationists get the upper hand: Activists were advised to push back: Should lawmakers claim that NATO expansion is what triggered Russia’s invasion of Ukraine: “Should anybody begin to make the argument that the reason the Russians have moved in on Ukraine – is because of NATO enlargement – can I just say that this is the age-old ‘blame America trope,’” the Chair advised the assembled delegates.

“They have the strain of isolationism that’s – ‘Let’s just do China and forget about Iran, forget about Russia, let’s just do one thing’ – but it doesn’t work that way,” said Boris Zilberman, director of policy and strategy for the CUFI Action Fund. Instead, he described “an intricate fabric of bad actors working hand in hand”.

So, to get to the bottom of this western mind-management in which appearance and reality are cut from the same cloth of hostile extremism: Iran, Russia and China are ‘cut from it’ likewise.

Plainly put, the import of this “behavioural-engineering enterprise (it no longer having much to do with the truth, no longer having much to do with your right to desire what you wish – or not desire what you don’t wish)” – is, as Kirn says: “everyone is in on the game”. “The corporate and state interests don’t believe you are wanting the right things—you might want Donald Trump— or, that you aren’t wanting the things you should want more” (such as seeing Putin removed).

If this ‘whole of society’ machinery is understood correctly in the wider world, then the likes of Iran or Hizbullah are forced to take note that war in the Middle East inevitably may bleed across into wider war against Russia – and have adverse ramifications for China, too.

That is not because it makes sense. It doesn’t. But it is because the ideological needs of ‘whole of society’ foreign-policy hinge on simplistic ‘moral’ narratives: Ones that express emotional attitudes, rather than argued propositions.

Netanyahu went to Washington to lay out the case for all-out war on Iran – a moral war of civilisation versus the Barbarians, he said. He was applauded for his stance. He returned to Israel and immediately provoked Hizbullah, Iran and Hamas in a way that dishonoured and humiliated both – knowing well that it would draw a riposte that would most likely lead to wider war.

Clearly Netanyahu, backed by a plurality of Israelis, wants an Armageddon (with full U.S. support, of course). He has the U.S., he thinks, exactly where he wants it. Netanyahu has only to escalate in one way or another – and Washington, he calculates (rightly or wrongly), will be compelled to follow.

Is this why Iran is taking its time? The calculus on an initial riposte to Israel is ‘one thing’, but how then might Netanyahu retaliate in Iran and Lebanon? That can be altogether an ‘other thing’. There have been hints of nuclear weapons being deployed (in both instances). There is however nothing solid, to this latter rumour.

Further, how might Israel respond towards Russia in Syria, or might the U.S. react through escalation in Ukraine? After all, Moscow has assisted Iran with its air defences (just as the West is assisting Ukraine against Russia).

Many imponderables. Yet, one thing is clear (as former Russian President Medvedev noted recently): “the knot is tightening” in the Middle East. Escalation is across all the fronts. War, Medvedev suggested, may be ‘the only way this knot will be cut’.

Iran must think that appeasing western pleas in the wake of the Israeli assassination of Iranian officials at their Damascus Consulate was a mistake. Netanyahu did not appreciate Iran’s moderation. He doubled-down on war, making it inevitable, sooner or later.

August 12, 2024 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Militarism, Progressive Hypocrite, Wars for Israel | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »