(An end of the year lament)

"Violence begets violence. Hatred begets hatred. And terrorism begets terrorism. A white ambassador said that y'all, not a black militant (Ambassador to Iraq, Edward Peck). Not a reverend who preaches about racism. An ambassador whose eyes are wide open and who is trying to get us to wake up and move away from this dangerous precipice upon which we are now poised..."
(Jeremiah Wright, September 16, 2001)

Prophets fare poorly in their own country, yet countries would do well to hearken to their prophets. Scorn, ridicule, and innuendo attend their pronouncements as the righteous defend their actions as logical, existential and necessary. Jeremiah Wright suffered such scorn and mockery because he understood the consequences of revenge on the innocent and the defenceless, justified by whatever inane discourse. Wright spoke truth to power that Sunday after 9/11 and the righteous cried to heaven condemning him to perdition for defaming America, for even suggesting that revenge for the sake of revenge is the motivation of the arch fiend against the Almighty, the foulest, most ignorant, most amoral rational for action.

Prophets anticipate truth; they review a nation's past history and can predict its future. Witness America's past as the Reverend Wright did that Sunday morning, and what America is doing now repeats its ugliness. Wright said this about America's past:

He pointed out, a white man, an ambassador, he pointed out that what Malcolm X said when he was silenced by Elijah Mohammad was in fact true, he said Americas chickens, are coming home to roost."

"We took this country by terror away from the Sioux, the Apache, Arikara, the Comanche, the Arapaho, the Navajo. Terrorism.

"We took Africans away from their country to build our way of ease and kept them enslaved and living in fear. Terrorism.

"We bombed Grenada and killed innocent civilians, babies, non-military personnel.

"We bombed the black civilian community of Panama with stealth bombers and killed unarmed teenage and toddlers, pregnant mothers and hard working fathers.

"We bombed Qaddafi's home, and killed his child. Blessed are they who bash your children's head against the rock. (See Psalm 137 to understand how the righteous take revenge against the innocent and defenceless.)

"We bombed Iraq. We killed unarmed civilians trying to make a living. We bombed a plant in Sudan to pay back for the attack on our embassy, killed hundreds of hard working people, mothers and fathers who left home to go that day not knowing that they'd never get back home.

"We bombed Hiroshima. We bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon and we never batted an eye.

"Kids playing in the playground. Mothers picking up children after school. Civilians, not soldiers, people just trying to make it day by day.

"We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff that we have done overseas is now brought right back into our own front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost.

That was the Sunday after 9/11, 2001 when Wright quoted Ambassador Peck. But even that list of America's atrocities is not complete as Mark Twain would attest in his recounting of the massacre of the Moro's at the turn of the last century 1900 and our disastrous foray into Vietnam when we lost 58,000 American soldiers and killed millions of Vietnamese and Cambodians.

This is the America that exists now: we preach righteousness, but lie with impunity; declare God's mission to bring freedom to the mid-east, then decimate the women and children, the old and infirm as necessary collateral damage; proclaim the existence of Weapons of Mass destruction, then massively destroy a nation's infrastructure, steal its natural resources, take control of its government replacing it with a favoured puppet; and then write the history to extol our righteousness while defaming the defenceless people decimated. Wright knew.

Perhaps our President might hearken back to a time when principles mattered, when truth mattered, when might did not make right, when the souls and hearts of people mattered, when justice and equality mattered not deceit and dominance over all. When did America become a dictatorial empire manipulated by an elite few using the Presidency like some houseboy to do their bidding? When did the founding documents get trashed, mocked and ridiculed as weak, worthless, and obsolete? When did the American people vote to become the dominant empire in the world? What interests of the people demand that this nation establish military bases in about 140 nations around the world then threaten the nations of the world with pre emptive slaughter should they dare to embark on economic or military equality with the United States? How do the actions implicit in these questions reflect a nation based on the rule of law, on justice for all its citizens, on equity of rights and recognition of rights, on the morals inherent in the Bill of Rights and the ideals enunciated in the Declaration of Independence?

Let's say it loud and clear, the America of our founding fathers no longer exists; America is owned in mind and pocket book by those who have purchased our representatives, propagate their news through the corporate controlled media, determine the receivers of our tax dollars salvaging those who wrought havoc with our economy, write the legislation that controls the American people orchestrated through the largest conglomerate of a police state ever assembled, Homeland Security, and in its final nail in the coffin of human rights has legislated the abolishment of habeas corpus and rule of law by installing the draconian National Defence Authorization Act (NDAA 2012). This act in the words of Jonathan Turley, expert in constitutional law (December 21, 2011 on C-Span, gives dictatorial power to the President:

President Obama has just stated a policy that he can have any American citizen killed without any charge, without any review, except his own. If he's satisfied that you are a terrorist, he says that he can kill you anywhere in the world including in the United States.

Two of his aides just ... reaffirmed they believe that American citizens can be killed on the order of the President anywhere including the United States.

You've now got a president who says that he can kill you on his own discretion. He can jail you indefinitely on his own discretion

I don't think the Framers ever anticipated that [the American people would be so apathetic]. They assumed that people would hold their liberties close, and that they wouldn't relax...

This is the President that rejected the Reverend Wright's prophecy, that capitulated to his new masters who demanded that he repudiate him, that now elevates himself to the role of Judge, Jury and executioner, the role that used to be played by the Sheriffs of the old segregated south when they turned a blind eye to those dragging a slave to the hanging tree. Indeed, we have turned back in time to that denunciated by a real leader of men, a man born into slavery, Frederick Douglass, when he described the America he lived in just before the Civil War:

What, to the American slave, is your 4th of July? I answer: a day that reveals to him, more than all other days in the year, the gross injustice and cruelly to which he is the constant victim. To him, your celebration is a sham; your boasted liberty, an unholy license; your national greatness, swelling vanity; your sounds of rejoicing are empty and heartless; your denunciations of tyrants, brass fronted impudence; your shouts of liberty and equality, hollow mockery; your prayers and hymns, your sermons and thanksgivings, with all your religious parade, and solemnity, are, to him, mere bombast, fraud, deception, impiety, and hypocrisy-a thin veil to cover up crimes which would disgrace a nation of savages. There is not a nation on the earth guilty of practices, more shocking and bloody, than are the people of these United States, at this very hour.

Go where you may, search where you will, roam through all the monarchies and despotisms of the old world, travel through South America, search out every abuse, and when you have found the last, lay your facts by the side of the everyday practices of this nation, and you will say with me, that, for revolting barbarity and shameless hypocrisy, America reigns without a rival.

The American people are now in Douglass' shoes; they have been put on notice that any pathological employee of Homeland Security, of the armed forces of the United State, of our local police and National Guard, can suspect a citizen of associating or being engaged somehow with "terrorists," can be arrested, interrogated, imprisoned indefinitely, without charge, without review except his own. The America Douglass so graphically describes existed up through the 100 years of segregation until the Civil Rights movement of 1954 got under way. We've had a modicum of equality for the past 50 years brought on by national movements that made clear to the government that they were elected to serve the people, not arrest them.

But let it also be said that the America Douglass describes, the one grounded in "bombast, fraud, deception, impiety, and hypocrisy," still exists outclassing its past a hundred fold. Our savagery knows no bounds: we decimate people wantonly throughout the world as Dresden, the fire-bombing of Japanese cities, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Vietnam, the sanctions against Iraq, the illegal invasion of Iraq, the unqualified military support we provide to the Zionist government in Israel against a defenceless people, the abominable use of drones against the people of Pakistan and Afghanistan, the continuing development of weapons of mass savagery and our willingness to develop further atomic weapons graphically illustrates.

The numbers slaughtered in this review is in the millions--not all dressed in combat fatigues. The numbers of the defenceless and the innocent outstrips those trained to kill. All of those slaughtered happened outside the United States and every son and daughter, mother and father, sister and brother, aunt and uncle, grandfather and grandmother felt the pain of loss that was to our forces a "body count." "Revenge is mine sayeth the Lord." "Violence begets violence, hatred begets hatred, terrorism begets terrorism," so rings the prophetic knell of the Reverend Wright to his congregation one of whom happened to be our current President Barack Obama. Would that he had listened, for if any man was ever elected to the office of President to change the world, this was the man and he has failed.

* William A. Cook is a professor of English at the University of La Verne in southern California and author of The Rape Of Palestine: Hope Destroyed, Justice Denied, Tracking Deception: Bush Mid-East Policy and The Chronicles Of Nefaria. He can be reached at: wcook@laverne.edu.

"Every man takes the limits of his own field of vision for the limits of the world." --Arthur Schopenhauer

Patriotism consists not in waving the flag, but in striving that our country shall be righteous as well as strong. --James Bryce

Americans won't like this. Practically everyone else will: Americans simply can never admit they were wrong.

Ill-begotten wars--from Vietnam to Afghanistan have accomplished nothing but increasing enemies toward American arrogance.

Nothing could have been more misguided than the Iraq war, based on a mythical collection of WMDs. The lie, the war and the occupation cost the lives of 4,801 Americans plus 179 UK lives and the death of 1,455,590 Iraqis. The WMD's never existed.

Instead of an admission that the Iraq debacle was wrong, the fraudsters made lame excuses in attempts to exonerate themselves. Past Vice President Dick Cheney, the strongest defender of the Iraq misadventure continues his vain attempts to justify the unjustifiable.

"There is nothing less to our credit than our neglect of the foreigner and his children, unless it be the arrogance most of us betray when we set out to 'Americanize' him," wrote American sociologist Charles Horton Cooley.

On November 28th, a NATO air attack killed at least two dozen Pakistani soldiers. Instead of admitting that they were wrong, the US military suggested that the Pakistanis shot first.

Said Fred Branfman about the incident, "Short-sighted U.S. policy is creating a national security disaster in Pakistan." Instead of apologizing and admitting to a mistake, Branfman concludes:

"The U.S. policy of trying to win in tiny Afghanistan by extending its war-making into giant, nuclear-armed Pakistan--including drone strikes, cross-border raids, illegal U.S. ground assassination... threatens the greatest U.S. foreign policy disaster...."

American arrogance has clearly found several avenues for acrimony. More than 1,000 American military bases around the world has often been an unwelcome embodiment of American military power.

Next, not only do Americans display a belief in their superiority over other countries, their leaders' actions reveal an arrogant pre-eminence over the masses of the American public.

In an earlier article, "Ruled by Arrogance", I commented on an American tendency to discredit others' opinions with forcefulness aimed at dominating those considered weaker or less important.

Texas governor and Republican presidential candidate Rick Perry faulted a mixture of arrogance and audacity in the Obama administration:

This administration in Washington...clearly believes that government is not only the answer to every need but it's the most qualified to make essential decisions for every American in every area. That mix of arrogance and audacity that guides the Obama administration is an affront to every freedom-loving American.

That's the same Rick Perry who arrogantly boasts about how great Texas has been with his governorship. In America, the pot (Rick Perry) is expected to call the kettle (Barack Obama) black.

Paradoxically, another American presidential candidate, Rick Santorum criticized President Obama for looking apologetic rather than being arrogant:

Watching President Obama apologize last week for America's arrogance before a French audience that owes its freedom to the sacrifices of Americans--helped convince me that he has a deep-seated antipathy toward American values and traditions.

What American values and traditions does Santorum believe become belittled by an apology uttered by an American president? American arrogance!

Earlier, in April 2009, a number of Republicans castigated President Obama for bowing before Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah. Though the White House denied it, the video of the meeting provided enough fodder for Obama's critics.

The arrogance of Obama's predecessor established a standard of American presidential behaviour that those following the Bush administration should not deviate from.

America has a history of arrogance reflected in racial and gender supremacy. The Ku Klux Klan (KKK) provides an example of a superior white attitude reflected in American slavery.

In a country full of misogyny, it's ironic that Americans now belittle countries whose men treat women as lesser creatures.

If it's difficult to convince most Americans that they are guided by undeserved arrogance, those who know it seem undisturbed by it.

As I mentioned in an earlier article, "Look closely enough and you'll find groups in any country who believe they are superior to all others."

When the political elite assume they are superior to others, and when the media elite behave as if America is better than others, they flaunt a dangerously endemic model of arrogant behaviour.

The problems come when the "others" resist being disadvantaged.

* Paul J. Balles is a retired American university professor and freelance writer who has lived in the Middle East for many years. He's a weekly Op-Ed columnist for the Gulf Daily News. Dr. Balles is also Editorial Consultant for Red House Marketing and a regular contributor to Bahrain This Month.

Is Israel Preparing to Attack Iran?

By Neve Gordon*

Skimming the newspapers as I rushed to get my children ready for school, I suddenly understood that Israel might actually be preparing for a military attack against Iran. "[United States Secretary of Defence Leon] Panetta Demanded Commitment to Coordinate Action in Iran" read one headline, and "A Bomb at Arm's Length" read another.

Feeding this hype were a series of military events that had been planned months in advance yet mysteriously coincided with the publication of the International Atomic Energy Agency report on Iran's efforts to produce a nuclear bomb. For four days straight all of the major television channels repeatedly showed images of Israel preparing for war.

It began with a report on Israel's testing of a long-range ballistic missile, which emphasised the missile's capacity to carry nuclear warheads. This was followed by interviews with pilots who were part of a comprehensive Israeli Air Force drill on long-range attacks carried out at an Italian NATO air base. Archival images of a missile being launched from an Israeli submarine were also shown. Ha'aretz readers were told that the submarine was important because it would enable Israel to carry out a second strike in case of a nuclear war.

These images of offensive arrangements were followed by images of Israel's defence preparations. On November 3rd, the three major news channels dedicated several minutes of air time to covering a drill simulating an attack on central Israel; these clips showed people being carried on stretchers and soldiers treating casualties who had been hit by chemical weapons. A day later, Ha'aretz reported that the military preparations against Iran had indeed been upgraded.

Iran with nuclear capabilities has been continuously presented as an existential threat to Israel. On October 31, in the opening speech of the Knesset's winter session Prime Minister Netanyahu noted that a "nuclearised Iran will constitute a serious threat to the Middle East and to the whole world and obviously also a direct and serious threat against us," adding that Israel's security conception cannot be based on defence alone but must also include "offensive capabilities which serve as the basis for deterrence."

Analysts repeatedly mentioned that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a Holocaust denier and Reuven Barko from Yisrael Hayom even compared Iran to Nazi Germany. One cannot underestimate the impact of this analogy on the collective psyche of Jewish Israelis.

Barko went on to connect Hamlet's phrase "to be or not to be" to Israel's current situation, while posing the existing dilemma confronting the State as "to hit or not to hit". President Shimon Peres claimed that Iran is the only country in the world "that threatens the existence of another country", but neglected to mention that for generations, the Palestinians have been deprived of their right to self-determination.

On the day when the International Atomic Energy Agency report was finally published practically all Israeli media outlets described it as a "smoking gun". The report, according to the media, provides concrete evidence that Iran's nuclear programme is also aimed at producing weapons. Zvi Yechezkeli from Channel Ten described it as "the end of the era of Iranian ambiguousness", but failed, of course, to remark that Israel's own ambiguity regarding its nuclear capacities continues unhindered; Roni Daniel from Channel Two declared that "we are relieved" by the report, suggesting that Israel's claims have now been corroborated and that the report can serve to justify both the imposition of harsher sanctions against Iran and even an attack.

Notwithstanding the endless war mongering, most Israeli commentators claimed that the frenzy was no more than a "nuclear spin". The majority of political analysts tended to agree that the media campaign, which presented Israel as seriously preparing to attack Iran, was orchestrated just in order to pressure the international community to impose harsher sanctions against Iran. Channel Ten's Or Heller put it succinctly when he said: "It appears that neither Iran nor the Israeli public is the target of what is going on here, but first and foremost it is the international community, the Americans, the British."

The commentators also noted that there is wall-to-wall opposition to an Israeli assault, including the US, Europe, Russia and China. Alex Fishman summed up the international sentiment when he wrote:

"If someone in Israel thinks that there is a green or a yellow light coming from Washington for a military attack against Iran - this person has no inkling whatsoever of what is going on; the light remains the same, a glaring red."

The portrayal of Israel as a neighbourhood bully who feigns a rage attack while calling out to his friends to hold him back is not particularly reassuring, however.

After 10 days of media frenzy, Defence Minister Ehud Barak tried to calm the public by saying that "not even 500 people would be killed" in the event of an attack - but he failed to say that there would be no attack.

Yossi Verter from Ha'aretz explained that the media hype serves Barak's interests. "A successful attack on the Iranian nuclear facilities under his ministerial leadership can rehabilitate his personal status, and help him recover the public's trust." Verter cites a leading member of the political system, who claims that "Barak is convinced that only a person of his security stature can lead perhaps the most fateful battle in Israel's history since the War of Independence."

Regardless of whether Netanyahu and Barak are already set on launching an assault, the media hype and the portrayal of Iran as constituting an existential threat to Israel surely help to produce the necessary conditions for a military campaign.

What is remarkable about this saber rattling is its abstraction. Not a single analyst noted that entering war is easy but ending it is far more difficult, particularly if on the other side stands a regional power with vast resources and a well-trained military (unlike Hamas or Hezbollah). And, of course, no one really talked about the likelihood of a gory future or what kind of life we were planning for our children. This kind of abstraction makes war palatable, providing a great service to the war machine.

* Neve Gordon is an Israeli activist and the author of Israel's Occupation and author of (University of California Press, 2008). He can be contacted through his website www.israelsoccupation.info

What a spectacle they make of themselves, whooping and stomping to the frenzied beat of Tel Aviv's drum, their dumb-ass chant getting ever shriller.

You can read about it on a British government website.

"The UK and many other countries have serious concerns about the Iranian Government's policies," says the Foreign Office, "its failure to address serious international concerns about its nuclear programme; its support for terrorism and promotion of instability in its region; and its continued denial of human rights..."

I really thought they were talking about Israel and had got the names muddled up. But no... "On Iran's nuclear programme, we are actively seeking a solution through diplomatic engagement and sanctions to encourage compliance by Iran with the requirements of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and six UN Security Council resolutions."

Wow, does this means that Israel, which Iran is supposed to be threatening, is an innocent victim of Iranian aggression, is a menace to no-one, is suddenly co-operating with the IAEA and is now in full compliance with all those UN resolutions?

This is hot news!

The Foreign Office goes further: "Iran's backing of Hizbollah in Lebanon, Hamas and other Palestinian Rejectionist Groups..."

Just a minute. What exactly is a "rejectionist group"? I had to look it up in the Oxford dictionary. A rejectionist, it says, is a person who rejects a proposed policy, especially an Arab who refuses to accept a negotiated peace with Israel.

Ah. So what are we supposed to call an Israeli who rejects a perfectly reasonable Arab peace deal... like "get off our land and there'll be no trouble"? What do we call an Israeli who defies international law and denies the human rights of others? An Israeli who treats UN resolutions with contempt?

"Rejectionist" Israel

Rejectionism is an Israeli thing; it's what they do, they specialise in it. Israel, let's face it, is king of the rejectionist business.

All this sabre-rattling and talk of pre-emptive strikes against Iran is getting on everyone's nerves. Iran, after all, is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and Israel is not. What does that tell us?

The Treaty dates back to 1970 so Israel has had more than enough time to show good faith and come on board with the other 189 State parties. The NPT has more signatories than any other treaty of its kind. The only refuseniks - OK, let's stay with the Foreign Office's new buzzword - the only rejectionists are India, Israel and Pakistan.

The British government says the international community must be prepared to "respond robustly" when a country withdraws from the NPT... "The NPT is not like any other treaty and the risks associated with its abuse are uniquely dangerous. We recommend immediate discussions at the UN Security Council if a country announces its intention to withdraw. The IAEA should be required to report immediately on the nuclear activities of that country."

It's common sense really. So what about countries, like Israel, that have stacks of nukes and refused to sign up to the NPT in the first place? What about the "uniquely dangerous risks" in Israel's case? Where's the robust response? Is the UNSC addressing Israel's rejectionism? Has the IAEA reported on Israel's nuclear activities?

As a matter of fact the IAEA is quite bothered about Israel. The BBC reported yesterday:

"On 18 September 2009, the IAEA called on Israel to join the NPT and open its nuclear facilities to inspection. The resolution said that the IAEA 'expresses concern about the Israeli nuclear capabilities, and calls upon Israel to accede to the NPT and place all its nuclear facilities under comprehensive IAEA safeguards'...

"Israel refuses to join the NPT or allow inspections. It is reckoned to have up to 400 warheads but refuses to confirm or deny this."

I've seen the 400 "deliverable" nukes figure before - it's nearly twice Britain's arsenal - also that European cities were targeted.

Israel is the third or fourth largest nuclear force in the world and the only one in the Middle East. A 2006/7 report by the Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission says:

"Most unofficial estimates claim that Israel possesses a nuclear arsenal numbering in the hundreds, possibly larger than the British stockpile. Israel is widely believed to possess both fission and fusion bombs. It has an unsafeguarded plutonium production reactor and reprocessing capability and possibly some uranium enrichment capability, along with various other uranium-processing facilities."

It is the only state in the region that is not a party to the Non-Proliferation Treaty. It has signed but not ratified the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty. As regards biological and chemical weapons, Israel has not signed the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention. It has signed but not ratified the Chemical Weapons Convention.

So why is the focus on Iran and not rejectionist Israel? Israel's incessant foaming at the mouth over Iran has nothing to do with the alleged remark by Mr Ahmadinejad to "wipe Israel off the map" - a remark he never made anyway. Long before that, back in 2002 and 2004 Israel was urging the international community to target Iran as soon as it had finished in Iraq and to strip Iran of WMD.

Are we expected to believe that Israel's leaders, given their lawless and belligerent track record, are saner than Iran's Ahmadinejad? Washington and London may believe such tosh but I doubt if anyone in the Middle East would. Or anyone else in Europe for that matter. A European Commission survey finds that the public believe Israel to be the biggest threat to world peace, greater than North Korea, Afghanistan or Iran.

Eighty per cent of Conservative MPs preach that Israel's enemies are our enemies but who is listening?

War-war not jaw-jaw

Perhaps the looniest thing I have heard lately is the passage through Congress of the ''Iran Threat Reduction Act of 2011''. Hidden away where it wouldn't be noticed, under "General Provisions - Denial of Visas for Certain Persons of the Government of Iran" (Section 601), is this gem...

(c) RESTRICTION ON CONTACT. -- No person employed with the United States Government may contact in an official or unofficial capacity any person that -- (1) is an agent, instrumentality, or official of, is affiliated with, or is serving as a representative of the Government of Iran; and (2) presents a threat to the United States or is affiliated with terrorist organizations. (d) WAIVER. -- The President may waive the requirements of subsection (c) if the President determines and so reports to the appropriate congressional committees 15 days prior to the exercise of waiver authority that failure to exercise such waiver authority would pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the vital national security interests of the United States.

It effectively bans diplomacy with Iran. Neither the President himself nor the Secretary of State nor any US diplomat or emissary is allowed to engage in negotiations or diplomacy with Iran unless the President can convince the "appropriate Congressional committees" (e.g. the House Foreign Affairs Committee whose strings are pulled by AIPAC) that not doing so would present "an unusual and extraordinary threat to the vital national security interests of the United States".

War-war is preferred to jaw-jaw. And it's no surprise to discover that this nonsense was cooked up by Reps. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) and Howard Berman (D-CA), who both lead the Foreign Affairs Committee.

How clever is it to abandon all the channels of normal diplomacy? Those who support the measure must be desperate for more bloodshed - as long as they personally don't have to act as cannon-fodder. Who can forget the chicken-hawks who casually ordered troops into Iraq and Afghanistan but would never dream of donning uniform and picking up a rifle themselves?

The preamble to this junk piece of legislation states:

In the 2006 State of the Union Address, President Bush stated that ''The Iranian government is defying the world with its nuclear ambitions, and the nations of the world must not permit the Iranian regime to gain nuclear weapons. America will continue to rally the world to confront these threats..." In February 2009, President Obama committed the Administration to ''developing a strategy to use all elements of American power to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon... Iran is a major threat to United States national security interests."

Is it really?

Circulating in the background for years have been rumours speculating on the whereabouts of nuclear warheads dumped by a US B-52 which crashed in 1991. Did freelancers salvage them? Was the nuke exploded by North Korea in 2006 one of these? Does Iran have some? Is this what the panic's about?

Many people are quite sure that if the increasingly unhinged Israeli leadership, with finger on the nuke button, believed their unlawful ambitions in the Middle East were permanently thwarted, they would think nothing of taking the rest of the world to hell with them.

* Stuart Littlewood is author of the book Radio Free Palestine, which tells the plight of the Palestinians under occupation. Read other articles by Stuart.

By Stephen Lendman* | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

Rogue state lawlessness and contempt for humanity define both nations.

At home, America is plagued by police state laws, contempt for human and civil rights, out-of-control corruption, banker occupation, corporate control of Washington, record budget and national debt levels, as well as depression-sized unemployment, poverty, homelessness, hunger and despair.

Abroad, America wages permanent wars on humanity, killing millions for wealth, power, and unchallengeable global dominance at the expense of suffering billions.

The rancid stench of Washington's war on the world permeates everywhere, threatening human and environmental survival.

It's no better in Israel, a nation believing only Jews have rights, and increasingly less of them under neoliberalized harshness, favoring the few at the expense of most others.

Like America and other Western states, Israeli policies disproportionately favor the rich. Since at least the mid-1980s, they've caused extreme wealth disparities, unemployment, poverty, hunger, homelessness and gradual loss of social benefits, heading toward ending them entirely.

Israelis finally reacted, protesting for weeks about unaffordable housing, high food and energy prices, onerous taxes on working households, lack of free education and better healthcare benefits, weak labor rights, and a nation no longer fit to live in for Jews.

It never was for Arabs comprising one-fifth of the population. Yet they're treated more like fifth column threats than citizens with equal rights.

On September 3, Haaretz writer Ilan Lior headlined, "Hundreds of thousands of Israelis expected (Saturday night) at massive 'March of the Million' rallies," later saying in a follow-up article:

At 9:30PM, Tel Aviv's Kikar Hamedina plaza filled for the main event, preceded by a march from Habima Square via Marmorek, Ibn Gvirol and Jabotinsky streets.

Protest leaders and supporters addressed eager crowds. Featured entertainers heightened the popular spirit for change. Earlier, student union head Yuval Bdolah expected the rally's size to be unprecedented in Israeli history.

It didn't disappoint as around half a million Israelis massed in cities nationwide. Over 300,000 filled Kikar Hamedina. Protest leader Yonatan Levy said the atmosphere was like "a second Independence Day."

National Student Union Chairman Itzik Shmuli addressed the crowd, saying:

"Mr. Prime Minister, the new Israelis have a dream and it is simple: to weave the story of our lives into Israel. We expect you to let us live in this country. The new Israelis will not give up. They demand change. They demand change and will not stop until real solutions come."

Protest leader Daphni Leef added:

"My generation always felt as though we were alone in this world, but now we feel the solidarity. They try to dismiss us as stupid children, and as extreme leftists," but hundreds of thousands rallying for social justice prove otherwise.

Over 50,000 massed in Jerusalem's Paris Square, double the previous largest number. Actress Orna Banai addressed the crowd, saying:

"I am not amused that there are hungry children here, that we have a soldier rotting in captivity for five years, (and) that Israel is one of the poorest examples there (is for) human rights."

Others also spoke across the country for long denied social justice. Their common theme was keeping up enough pressure to succeed, and in Haifa to end discrimination against Arabs.

Shahin Nasser, Haifa's Arab Wadi Nisnas representative, addressed protesters, saying:

"Today we are changing the rules of the game. No more coexistence based on hummus and fava beans. What is happening here is true coexistence, when Arabs and Jews march together shoulder to shoulder calling for social justice and peace."

"We've had it. Bibi, go home. Steinitz (Israel's finance minister), go and don't come back. Atias (Israel's housing minister), goodbye and good riddance."

Rallying for social justice across Israel since mid-July so far shows no signs of ebbing. Succeeding, of course, depends on sustaining enough energy disruptively for change. Though never easy, it's the only way.

Approaching Zero Hour for Palestinian Statehood

Sovereign independence and full de jure UN membership is the only acceptable alternative for Palestine. However, dark Israeli and Washington forces aim to subvert it.

In February, Washington vetoed a Security Council resolution denouncing expanding Israeli settlements. In a White House statement, Obama "emphasized that a vote at the United Nations will never create an independent Palestinian state," even if the General Assembly grants it by a simple two-thirds majority.

Moreover, Congress near unanimously condemned Palestine's legitimate right to independence. In addition, it threatens to withhold support and perhaps impose sanctions if achieved.

In fact, political Washington contemptuously spurns universal rights, especially everywhere not under its control. As a result, whether democrat or despot, regime change threatens all independent leaders by one means or other, including naked aggression.

Ask Iraqis, Afghans, Haitians, and Libyans among others. They'll explain.

A previous article discussed The New York Times opposition to Palestinian statehood.

In fact, its longstanding policy staunchly supported Israel's occupation, belligerence, and right to reign terror on Palestinian civilians with impunity, in less than so many words.

On September 3, Steven Lee Myers and Mark Landler headlined, "US Appeals to Palestinians to Stall UN Vote on Statehood," saying:

"The Obama administration has initiated a last-ditch diplomatic campaign to avert a confrontation this month over" Palestinian statehood and full UN membership.

Once again it's playing the peace talks game even though past efforts for decades proved stillborn. Moreover, how can Palestinians negotiate without a willing partner, especially since its legitimate government is entirely shut out.

Both writers omitted these and other key facts, focusing instead on worrying whether "Obama would be put in the position of threatening (a) veto (or going along and) risk alienating Israel and its (US) political supporters...."

They also suggested support for Obama "trying to translate the broad principles (he) outlined in May into a concrete road map for talks that would succeed where past efforts have failed...."

In fact, as both writers know or should, equitable peace talks are impossible because Washington and Israel never tolerated them and don't now. Neither country negotiates. They demand. For Occupied Palestinians, it's stay that way, or else.

At the same time, past articles explained that Washington earlier provisionally recognized Palestine as an independent nation. According to UN Charter Article 80(1), it can't reverse its position by vetoing a Security Council (SC) resolution calling for Palestine's UN admission.

Doing so is illegal, subject to further SC action under the Charter's Chapter VI. Ultimately, the SC only recommends admissions. The General Assembly affirms them by a two-thirds majority. At this time, enough support exists to get it.

Moreover, if Washington does, in fact, play its veto card, the General Assembly can circumvent it under the 1950 Uniting for Peace Resolution.

Abbas Holds the Wild Card

Ultimately, long-time Israeli collaborationist Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas may prove the wild card. Ahead of petitioning the General Assembly, he's expected to explain his strategy, according to presidential aide Nabil Abu Rudaineh, saying:

"The president will define all the political moves which will be taken before submitting the UN bid, so as to make clear where the Palestinian cause is headed."

He'll "address the Palestinian people, telling them exactly why the (PA) will go to the UN, and what caused the current political situation after negotiations stopped, and after the international community failed to work out solutions to the question of Palestine, and to move the negotiation process forward based on clear foundations."

Abu Rudaineh added:

Palestinian leaders will petition the UN "as long as negotiations have not started, and Israel has not committed to clear references to start" them.

"We will go to the UN Security Council in coordination with all Arab countries. Going to the UN will be the only way to gain our rights and to maintain our gains."

Clearly, Abbas left himself wiggle room to avoid confronting Washington and Israel by backing down at the 11th hour, despite enough world support and international law on his side to succeed.

If so, millions of Palestinians will be betrayed by their own president, proving again his collaborationist ties to to Israel and Western interests for whatever personal benefits he's afforded.

Planned Settler West Bank/East Jerusalem Belligerence

According to International Middle East Media Center writer Saed Bannoura, Palestinians also face another threat.

On September 2, he headlined, "Settlers Plan Attacks Against Palestinians In September," saying:

Armed by Israel's military with tear gas, stun grenades and other weapons, "extremist right wing factions (are) preparing (to) respond to any popular Palestinian move" to petition the UN for statehood and full membership.

Already, settlers are heavily armed with automatic weapons and "unlimited amounts of ammunition." Using them and other weapons, they prepared a plan called "children against children, women and women" to attack unnamed West Bank and East Jerusalem populations.

Extremist MK Michael Ben-Ari heads the scheme along with militant settlers, apparently spoiling for a fight and using Palestinian statehood efforts as a pretext.

"The eight-page plan includes instructions regarding operations in Palestinian cities and villages in the West Bank and in Jerusalem. Its main slogan is 'let's transform September from a threat to a historic opportunity to change the rules of the game.' "

It adds:

"should the UN officially recognize a Palestinian independent state, hundreds of thousands of Palestinians will take off to the streets, to celebrate, and they might approach the settlements."

"Unarmed Palestinian women and children will lead the processions heading to the settlements. This will push the Israeli soldiers to open fire at them, and this issue will lead to a full collapse in the security situation, and the Palestinians will resume their attacks against the settlements."

The plan calls for Israeli children to confront their Palestinian counterparts, Israeli women and men doing the same thing.

Palestinian settlers have a long history of attacking Palestinians with impunity, including acts of vandalism, desecrating mosques, and murder.

Their most extremist elements now see a chance to escalate violence to the next level, aided and abetted by Israel's military, operating under Operation Summer Seeds provisions.

A previous article explained.

* Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon.

By Stephen Lendman* | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

The Rat Patrol - Edna Spennato

When they respond, Israel calls it terrorism, claiming justification for greater attacks in "self-defense," what international law prohibits.

In fact, UN Charter Article 2(4) says:

"All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations."

Only two exceptions apply. Under Chapter VII, the Security Council may authorize force to restore peace. Individual states must abide by Chapter VII, Article 51 stating:

"Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defense shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security."

In addition, individual states may use defensive force against armed attacks until the Security Council acts. No other exceptions apply, including armed reprisals. Calling them unlawful, the General Assembly said all states must refrain from using them.

The right of self-defense is limited solely to deterring armed attacks, preventing future ones after initial assaults, or reversing the consequences of enemy aggression, such as ending an illegal occupation.

Even then, however, force must conform to the principles of necessity, distinction, and proportionality.

Necessity permits only attacking military targets.

Distinction pertains to distinguishing between civilian and military ones.

Proportionality prohibits disproportionate force likely to damage nonmilitary sites and/or harm civilian lives.

Moreover, a fourth consideration requires preventing unnecessary suffering, especially affecting noncombatant civilians.

If these objective aren't possible, attacks are prohibited.

Moreover, to a limited degree, anticipatory self-defense is permitted when compelling evidence shows likely imminent threats or further attacks after initial ones.

However, attackers bear burden of proof responsibility, most often failing the test as America always did post-WW II. Israel also, without exception, since its preemptive 1947-48 "war of independence."

In fact, it was naked aggression against another country, stealing 78% of it from its citizens, the UN's 1947 Partition Plan notwithstanding, granting 56% of historic Palestine to Jews, as well as designating Jerusalem an international city under a UN Trusteeship Council.

The UN Charter also explains under what conditions intervention, violence and coercion are justified. None exist in Palestine now or ever. Claiming an "inherent right" is also bogus under international law.

In addition, Article 2(3) and Article 33(1) require peaceful settlements of international disputes, not preemptive attacks. Article 2(4), in fact, prohibits force or its threatened use, including violent interventions of any kind.

Further, Articles 2(3), 2(4), and 33 absolutely prohibit instigating any unilateral or other external threat or use of force not specifically allowed under Article 51 or otherwise authorized by the Security Council. Doing so is naked aggression.

America and Israel are serial offenders. In response, Iraqis, Afghans, Pakistanis, Libyans, Somalis, Yemenis, and Palestinians may legally respond defensively to preemptive armed aggression.

When done, however, it's called terrorism. Aggressors make their own rules. Targeted states are doubly victimized, suffering armed attack effects, then vilified for defending themselves. It amounts to a shocking damned if you do or don't fate.

Lawless Israeli Aggression

Since August 18, Israel lawlessly bombed and shelled Gaza preemptively, falsely blaming Palestinians for multiple Israeli attacks. In fact, they bear classic false flag characteristics, notably because compelling reasons existed to launch them.

Ongoing for four days, mounting casualties include 19 Palestinians dead and 50 or more injured, mostly civilians in harms way or willfully targeted to inflict pain and suffering.

Besides violating UN Charter Article 51, Israel also defiled Fourth Geneva's Article 33 stating:

"No protected person may be punished for an offence he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited....Reprisals against protected persons and their property are prohibited."

No matter. Israel willfully violates this and other international law provisions, committing preemptive armed aggression against Palestinian civilians, including using illegal weapons.

On August 19, The Palestine Monitor headlined, "Attacks on Gaza continue: 'I've never seen shrapnel wounds like this before," saying:

On Friday night alone, over a dozen air attacks struck multiple Gaza sites, including a civilian car, killing a family of three - a doctor, his five-year old son and others.

Media coordinator for Gaza's medical service, Adham Abu Salmiya, said Israel is using new kinds of weapons. Doctors reported unusual injuries, resulting in increased amputations.

Maha Elbanna, a Gaza City based Palestinian/American journalist noted images of wounded victims looking especially gruesome, saying:

"There is a picture of a teenage girl with shrapnel cuts in her face that are very deep, like I've never seen before. I have seen shrapnel wounds before and these are very strange."

In fact, weapons used may be high explosive Dense Inert Metal Explosive (DIME) ones made out of a tungsten alloy. Used during Cast Lead, they have enormous explosive power, enough to cut people struck to pieces.

In 2006, they were first used in Lebanon and Gaza. They not only kill and mutilate, their toxins cause a long-term cancer threat.

Flechette munitions possibly also were used - 4cm-long darts used as anti-personnel weapons. They penetrate to the bone, causing multiple horrific injuries. Up to 8,000 can be packed into one artillery shell. After exploding, they travel at high speed in multiple directions up to around 300 meters.

DIME and flechette munitions are terror weapons, violating the letter and spirit of international law.

Albanna added that "(t)here is so much damage across Gaza - in the north, south and in Gaza City....So far, there is no evidence that anyone in Gaza is responsible for what happened."

Dr. Mustafa Barghouthi, Palestinian National Initiative Secretary-General said:

"This is a campaign that is turning into a massacre and civilian areas are targeted."

Among other nonmilitary targets, Israelis struck a concrete factory, gravely injuring two civilians. Barghouthi and Palestinian Medical Relief Society (PMRS) doctors called on the international community to demand an immediate cease fire.

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas requested a special Security Council session to stop Israel's naked aggression.

In response, Gazans launched Qassam and Grad rockets as well as mortars, hardly an adequate defense against F-16s, Apache helicopter gunships, tanks and other high-tech weapons, ones Israel uses lawlessly against civilians.

On August 20, Haaretz said a Be'er Sheva home was struck Saturday night, causing one death and four injuries.

Another rocket slightly wounded two children. In total since Thursday evening, dozens of Qassam and Grad rockets, as well as numerous mortar rounds were fired at southern Israel, wounding about 16 Israelis. Areas in and around Be'er Sheva, Ashkelon, Ashdod, Eshkol and Sha'ar Hanegev were struck. Casualties and damage caused hardly compared to what Israel inflicted on Gaza, taking an enormous toll as always.

More was inflicted Sunday when Israel struck Beit Lahia, injuring seven Palestinians, besides causing extensive damage from four days of attacks, more perhaps to come.

On August 21, Haaretz said eight senior Israeli cabinet ministers met Saturday night to discuss escalated attacks on Gaza. Cast Lead II perhaps?

Also on August 21, opposition Kadima MKs demanded Israel "launch a (large-scale) military campaign" against Gaza.

MK Shaul Mofaz (former Defense Minister and IDF Chief of General Staff) said steps must be taken to "topple (Hamas') infrastructures and create a system of ties with Egypt in order to prevent terrorism coming from its border."

In other words, when in doubt, attack. Perhaps Cast Lead II indeed. Considering Israel's horrific crimes of war and humanity last time, imagine what now may be planned.

No matter. World leaders remain silent. As usual, an August 18 White House Press statement blamed Palestinian victims the way Obama wrongfully condemned Gaddafi to justify lawless US/NATO aggression.

On August 21, Haaretz writer Yossi Sarid headlined, "Israel is isolating itself from all its Mideast allies," saying:

Israel lashed out indiscriminately, blaming everyone but itself. "Hamas is to blame because it is reponsible for everything (in) Gaza." So is Islamic Jihad. "(I)t's the (PA's) fault because it agreed (to) unite with Hamas (for) a joint government. Al Qaeda is the guilty party because" it's everywhere, "and Egypt, too, bears responsibility" because they haven't acted against "terror."

Israel's capacity for making enemies may ultimately be its undoing, leaving it isolated and reviled. For its many victims, it can't happen a moment too soon.

A Final Comment

Some good news and bad. First the bad. On August 20, Israeli forces invaded Hebron, breaking into dozens of homes, searching and damaging them, as well as arresting about 120 residents, mostly Hamas political leaders and supporters.

Now the good. On August 21, Haaretz writer Hila Raz headlined, "Israeli activists: Social protests must continue despite escalation of" violence, saying:

"Despite the escalation of violence in the south, the tent protesters are determined to keep fighting for social justice, said organizers over the weekend."

Tel Aviv protest leader Stav Shafir said:

"We'll need to find new and creative ways to protest. For many years, Israeli society got used to giving in due to security issues....Because the protest is so strong, fierce, and affects all layers of society, we understand that if we don't continue, things will be worse."

Indeed so. As a result, staying the course is crucial to have any hope for success. National Student Union leader Itzik Shmueli said:

"The goal is to get the government to fix matters such as health care, education and housing....There's no reason for the protests to die out. We have a very powerful weapon on our side - the truth."

Hopefully that spirit won't wane despite Israel's objective to crush it. In fact, it was present Saturday night, YNet News saying Tel Aviv "protesters march(ed) under red banners....chanting time-honored slogans from the oeuvre of the pacifist hard Left." They included:

"Jews and Arabs refuse to be enemies."

"We demand social justice in both Israel and the Territories."

"Let us live in dignity in both Gaza and Ashdod," and

"No to another war that will bury the protest."

Imagine that spirit inspiring all Israelis. It's already present in Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem, so why not throughout all Eretz Yisrael.

* Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon.

By Julie Webb-Pullman * | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

Eilat incidents

The funeral on Saturday Aug 20th, 2011 of Islam Oreqa, 2, in Gaza City. Islam was killed by an Israeli airstrike (Photo: Suhaib Salem/Reuters)

Or does the PRC Israel accuses really refer to the Peoples' Republic of China, because a teeshirt at the scene was made there? Clearly the Gaulloise cigarette butt and the empty coke bottle on the roadside suggest that the putative Gazan/Chinese terrorists were working in collaboration with...a French-US cell responsible for health terrorism, perhaps?

There is certainly a lot more evidence for the last phrase, than for ANY of the former propositions.

Right to "security" and "self-defence"

Human rights are something that ALL humans are supposed to enjoy – not just Zionist Israelis. Palestinians also have the "right" to "security" – despite the international community doing precious little to uphold it for the last 63 years, from the day in 1948 they so generously gave away Palestinian land without their consent to establish the state of Israel within proscribed borders, to the present day.

Borders designate the territory within which a nation can be secure – they define the parameters to be respected by itself regarding 'excursions', and others regarding 'incursions'. When territory is subjected to incursions, the occupants have the right of proportional self-defence, under international law.

Israel has not only never accepted any borders whatsoever, but it has invaded every neighbouring country with which it shares one - at whim, and for decades.

Israel has thus repeatedly failed to respect the security of its neighbours – then cried "terrorist" when any of them acted in self-defence against its gross breaches of their territorial integrity. The very simple solution to Israel's self-created security problem is to stay within its internationally – and multilaterally - proscribed borders.

If Israel claims the right to security, it must also extend this right to Palestinians. If Israel claims the right to self-defence, it must also extend this right to the territories it invades, including (but not limited to) Palestinian territory – and in the current case, to Gaza, which has come under unjustified and sustained attacks on its civilians for the last three days.

Learning to Count

Israel rants and raves when one Israeli is imprisoned in Gaza - while they hold more than 6000 Palestinians in Israeli jails, the majority in breach of numerous articles of the Geneva Convention [PDF].

Israeli authorities – and the mainstream media - scream loud and long every time one rocket is fired from Gaza into Israel – but ignore the THOUSANDS Israel fires into Gaza.

Israel – and the mainstream media - fail to distinguish between the mostly homemade, inaccurate and short-range weaponry of the Palestinians which rarely cause civilian injury let alone death, and Israel's state-of-the-art, highly-accurate, often illegal and/or experimental – and lethal - arsenal which is mercilessly and knowingly targeted at civilians, killing and injuring Palestinians at a rate at least a hundred-fold more.

International Citizenship

In order for the peoples of the world to co-exist harmoniously, institutions and systems have been developed, and sometimes implemented. Amongst these are the United Nations, and international law. Accepting the benefits of membership requires also accepting the accompanying responsibilities – if you do the crime, you do the time.

So when UN member countries (of which Israel is one) breach the standards demanded of them as signatories to various conventions , declarations, and covenants, they may be subjected to resolutions requiring them to cease the offending practices or behaviour, and are expected to comply, in the spirit of good international citizenship.

There have been more than 80 United Nations Resolutions condemning Israel's conduct towards Palestinians since 1970, including several requiring Israel to withdraw from territories it has invaded beyond the borders established in international law.

Israel has not honoured either its legal obligations as a member of the international organisation, or its moral obligations as a member of the world community – it has repeatedly and persistently shunned its responsibilities under international law, marking it as a "rogue state."

Aided and abetted by a veto-wielding superpower, Israel has thus made a mockery of, and exposed the hypocrisy of, the UN system existing to protect the peoples of the world from the very abuses Israel commits with impunity against others, whilst continuing to demand its protection.

Meanwhile Palestinians, dispossessed refugees in their own land, evicted from their homes, livelihoods destroyed, blockaded in an open-air prison or quartered behind a concrete wall, imprisoned without charge in appalling conditions, regularly subjected to military attack by prohibited and often experimental weapons in disproportionate responses to legally justifiable self-defensive actions, die in their thousands, not just victims of Israel's breaches of international law, but also of the rest of the international community's failure to uphold - and enforce - it.

Cynical Attempt to deflect internal protests – at Gaza's expense

Several analysts and commentators have suggested that this week's attacks on Gaza are a cynical attempt to deflect attention from the Israeli government's internal problems, the growing protests since the beginning of August. A few tents in Tel Aviv had by 13 August swelled to 350,000 protestors in 18 Israeli cities demanding reductions in the cost of living. A million-person march had been called for Saturday 20th August, – but was postponed because of the "attacks." It seems the strategy worked – for Netanyahu at least.

For Gazans it is not the cost of living that is at the forefront – but living at all. Taking a child to hospital on a motorbike, driving home in a car both proved fatal to several Gazans yesterday, civilian victims of targeted Israeli missiles. Sleeping in his own bed in a residential neighbourhood was fatal for a 13 year old boy the night before. Just walking outside in a refugee camp was fatal for a man today.

As I write this I can hear the sounds of war – definitely drones, possibly Apaches, punctuated by the occasional explosion. The sound of another family finding grief among the rubble, their pain and loss NO fault of their own – their only crime being their presence in Gaza.

Like them, I do not know if I will be crushed in my bed by a collapsing building tonight, decapitated or made limbless by flying debris, or just blown apart next time I go to the corner shop, to the bakery for bread – simply because I happen to be in Gaza, and Israel has decided to ignore all evidence to the contrary and blame Gaza for the Eilat deaths, to ignore international law and to ignore all moral precepts, and blast the place to smithereens.

What now?

Israel has not produced any compelling evidence that anyone in Gaza was involved in the Eilat attacks, and it is acting in breach of international law in its blatant attacks on civilians in Gaza. Some Gazans have responded in legitimate self-defence to the Israeli attacks on their territory and persons, with the only means at their disposal – inaccurate homemade weapons that will inevitably miss their target most of the time.

The solution is simple – for Israel to cease its illegal attacks, thus removing Gaza's need for retaliatory defensive strikes.

While a condemnatory statement of the aggressor by the Secretary-General of the United Nations might go some way to demonstrating that there is one standard for all, without enforcement of the relevant international standards we will continue to die at Israel's hands.

The United Nations, and the international community, must act immediately to prevent further atrocities by the Israeli rogue state – now, and into the future.

Its days of impunity must be brought to an end, or the UN faces terminal loss of relevance, credibility, and legitimacy - and we in Gaza face uncertain death.

* Julie Webb-Pullman is a New Zealand based freelance writer who has reported for Scoop since 2003. She was selected to be part of the Kiwi contingent on the Viva Palestina Convoy - a.k.a. Kia Ora Gaza. Send Feedback to julie@scoop.co.nz

(1) Dubious Evidence Israeli Bus Attackers Based in Gaza
Following deadly terror attacks on Israel, Israeli Air Force kills 9 in Gaza despite lack of evidence connecting attackers to the Strip

Video link: http://youtu.be/pHewp5PkjJ8

A version of this article first appeared on Scoop

The power of lies, deception and self-delusion

By Christopher King* | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

My family has an investment in Libya. It is a small plot of land in the Knightsbridge War Cemetery at Acroma, eastern Libya, where my uncle, my father's brother, is buried. He died fighting Rommel's forces in World War II and left a young wife. My grandmother mourned him, her youngest son, for the rest of her life. You might say that my father was more fortunate. Although he was captured by the Japanese when Singapore fell due to British military incompetence, he survived his period as a prisoner of war.

You might think that my parents were able to take up their lives where they left off. That was not the case. Warfare, it seems, changes people. Suffice to say that the war destroyed our family.

That is why I despise the warmongers Barack Obama, George Bush, Anthony Blair, Gordon Brown and David Cameron along with the Gaddafis and Saddams - men who enrich themselves and advance their interests in others' blood and suffering. Nor do I exclude the British Chiefs of Defence Staff who wring their hands in mock sorrow at the deaths of their men. If they had a scrap of courage themselves they would cite the Nuremberg Principles and bring their men home. These people are all the same. Every country has them - failures as moral humans. Why do we tolerate them?

It is a mystery to me why anyone voted a second term for Anthony Blair after he had hawked the Americans' Iraq invasion around Europe. Our public next voted him in for a third term! David Cameron, Gordon Brown and Nick Clegg all stood on a pro-war platform. Everyone voted for them as if it were the most natural thing in the world for these men to conspire to invade other countries, bomb and shoot their inhabitants and assassinate them with drones. It can be no surprise that our politicians are engaged in yet another American war in Libya.

The British public accepts being led by men who prefer war to peace, to being robbed by their paymasters, the bankers, American and British, rather than controlling our own money and to being parasitized by America rather than ruling ourselves. There can be only one explanation: our public is afraid of the truth which is in plain sight. We are witnessing the triumph of illusion over reality; of lies over truth; of hope over the death of our economy. Yes, of evil over good. When tens, even hundreds of thousands of men, women and children have been killed in ten years of warfare, something is very wrong. Someone is doing something very bad. The simple, even trivial explanation: our public does not want to hear the bad news.

The bad news is that the consumer dream of infinite growth and never-ending plenty is at an end. The country's economic trend is now downward. Our political and business leaders are engaged in a desperate conspiracy to conceal this trend to general poverty while ensuring that they and their families live in luxury. Anthony Blair, the bought-and-paid-for multi-millionaire is the model. He and his family live well at the cost of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives and Afghan lives.

The good news? I shall have to think about it.

Our public clearly believes that our leaders and bankers are capable, responsible men. They know more than us, they must know what they are doing! And it is true.

They are indeed responsible men: our politicians are responsible to their banker and industrialist paymasters, our bankers to their co-conspirators. They do know more than we do - and ensure that we do not find our what they know by using the Official Secrets Act, invoking commercial confidence and a hundred tricks and evasions in and out of the courts and Parliament. And they know what they are doing very well - robbing us as ruthlessly as any Mubarak or Gaddafi.

One day soon, perhaps seven or 10 years time, the British public will awaken cold, hungry, with children badly clothed, food and energy in short supply, bank accounts empty, debts unpaid, jobs impossible to find, social security non-existent. "How has this happened?" will be the cry. "Where is the economic recovery?" My friends, the economic recovery will exist only in politicians' mouths, in the pages of the Murdoch press and, of course, in banking inventions.

One of the best of men, Brian Haw, has lived in a tent in Parliament Square, protesting our wars for the last 10 years. It is no coincidence that those who have the fewest possessions see reality most clearly. That is why Jesus said (Mark 10:25) that a rich man will never enter the Kingdom of Heaven. It is always a matter of money. Wars are for money and those who kill foreigners to steal their resources will hardly shrink from killing their own countrymen to add to and preserve their wealth.

Why should anyone imagine that our prime minister and his deputy are any more virtuous than Saddam, Mubarak or Gaddafi when all the evidence is against it? Public illusion is possible because we are still able to live on the capital that past generations built up in this country. It will not last long in competition with over two and a half billion persons in China and India alone, whose ambition is to achieve our living standards and whose current income averages about GBP 50 to 60 per month. Note: averages. Hundreds of millions have no measurable income. These are not merely statistics. They are part of the dynamics of global production and markets.

It is not our corrupt politicians who act in the best interests of our people and our country. It is the Julian Assanges and Brian Haws. They are the prophets of our time and the rich Great and Good hate them. We should be flocking to support our prophets in our own best interests and it is precisely because they speak for our best interests that they are hated.

We have several generations who think that war is a sort of movie or computer game. Soldiers' families are shocked and surprised when their sons and husbands are killed. It's not supposed to happen. They seek explanations. The explanation is that their loved ones have died to ensure that America's rich get richer and to allow our bankers and big businessmen to pick over their garbage. That is what our country has come to.

My friends, you have not yet recognized that we are at war within our country. We are living on capital, on the fat accumulated by past generations of inventors, builders and social reformers. It will soon be gone and our war will become exactly like those of Tunisia, Egypt or Syria. Perhaps like Afghanistan. You don't believe it? Just look at the speed of collapse in Greece.

The first steps in commencing rebuilding our country and re-establishing an independent, self-reliant Britain are:

• Abandon the American wars that we are engaged in
• Get rid of all American bases in this country
• Leave NATO, abandon US military purchases, join a European defence force.

The first steps in commencing an economic recovery are:

• Stop the sale of publicly owned banking assets.
• Mutualize all publicly owned banking assets
• Cease government guarantees of deposits with the private sector banks
• Give government guarantees only to deposits with cooperative or mutual banks
• Cease giving private banks access to Bank of England funds
• Channel Bank of England funds exclusively through mutualized banks
• Investigate the HSBC takeover of the Midland bank in relation to an alleged one million pounds donation to the Conservative Party from the Chinese government representative on the board and if corruption is confirmed, to nationalize equivalent HSBC assets.

The chancellor of the exchequer, George Osborne, has announced that he will "ring fence" the banks' domestic banking sections and guarantee their deposits. This minimal, token gesture, originating from the Vickers-chaired Treasury Select Committee, is hailed as protecting the economy by our chancellor. The chancellor and this committee are not concerned with the national economy. They are concerned about preserving the wealth and privilege of their banker friends and themselves.

The threats to individual and national wealth posed by the greedy banks are undiminished. The media are already predicting that the banks will recover their profits from increased banking charges. It is not a matter of painting the banks a different colour. They crashed the economy and have been robbing us ever since.

The present banking system gives private sector bankers access to government Bank of England funds, government guarantees of their deposits and government bailouts of their losses. This system is an outrage. It needs complete replacement.

My father kept himself alive in a Japanese prison camp and his brother died in fighting wars that they believed were for their families, their countries and for a good cause. It was not for these despicable, disgusting liars who are robbing their own people and murdering foreigners by the hundreds of thousands for obscene wealth and insane American world-dominance fantasies backed by threats of nuclear holocaust. This is what truth looks like. I suspect that the British public will have to experience some "Third World" poverty in order to see it clearly.

* Christopher King is a retired consultant and lecturer in management and marketing. He lives in London, UK.

By Dr. Ashraf Ezzat * | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

Demands: Embassy Closure and Withdrawal from The Camp David Accords in Wake of Renewed Attacks on Gaza

From Exclusive Video Coverage of The Embassy Seige

Editor's notes: The western press and even Al Jazeera have failed to report today's demonstrations in Tahir Square, Cairo accurately. Thousands of Egyptians marched from the square to the Israeli Embassy, demanding that the current military government end diplomatic relations with Israel in wake of the recent assault on Gaza by the IDF.

Israel claims that a school bus was attacked with a mortar round this week and it was necessary for the army to respond with tanks, helicopters, rockets and a step-up of the nightly bombing campaign that has gone on for months.

Skeptics doubt Israel's claim of an attack from Gaza, citing Israel's propensity for fabricating threats and the bizarre choice of weapons. From an American intelligence source who has worked with Israel for decades:

Israel has been using the "mortar attack" story more and more. Any small explosive charge can be made to look like a mortar attack. even a hand grenade. You only need to throw a few shards of metal around, the cheapest and dirtiest "false flag" possible and Israel has done this dozens of times.

Hamas has mortars but they also have thousands of RPGs. That's the weapon used to go after a vehicle. Saying someone shot a mortar at a bus is simply idiotic. If Gaza has the weapons Israel claims, Russian Kornet and RPG 29s which are capable of destroying Israel's Merkava tanks quite readily, as Hizbollah proved, the "school bus" story is even more fictional.

EXCLUSIVE TODAY VIDEO

VIDEO LINK: http://youtu.be/u6jC4gCGH4s

Background, The Egyptian Anti-Israeli Backlash

Egyptians marching to the Israeli embassy in cairo, protesting over Israeli strikes of Gaza.

On this very day, April 8th since 41 years the Israeli air force struck the village of Bahr el-Baqar – an Egyptian small village near Suez Canal. The raid resulted in the total destruction of an elementary school full of school children. Five bombs and 2 air-to-ground missiles struck the single-floor school. Of the 130 school children who attended the school, 46 were killed, and over 50 wounded, many of them maimed for life. The school itself was completely demolished.

That tragic day marked the first encounter of the Egyptian people with the brutality and the indiscriminate aggression of the Israelis that targeted the innocent and unarmed civilians. This air raid demolished not only the school building but also the remains of any hopes for Israel to be seen as a friendly neighbor state.

From then on Israel was the absolute enemy in the eyes of every average Egyptian.

This terrorist attack on the innocent Egyptian school children has been deeply engraved in the memory of all Egyptians. And to make sure that no one forgot what Israel had done on that day, Egyptians made April 8th a mourning day for the killed school children of Bahr el-Bakar and to be commemorated every year for the last 41 years.

Only this year it was rather different.

Egypt-Israel relations in the last 40 years

Egypt has just emerged from its worldwide celebrated revolution which managed to topple the long lasting in power dictator, Hosni Mubarak.

So many things happened in Egypt since the Israeli raid on April 8th, 1970.

• Egypt retaliated against years of Israeli military aggression and political arrogance in the glorious October war 1973 against Israel.

• President Sadat signed – on an individual initiative- a peace treaty with Israel 1979 (based on Camp David accords) that never managed to naturalize relations between Egyptians and Israelis.

• Mubarak ruled Egypt since 1980 and began a long era of not only observing the terms of the peace treaty but to acting as the closest friend of Israel and the White House in the Middle East.

• Mubarak, through his corrupt reign, helped Israel tighten its shameful siege on Gaza and even supplied Tel Aviv with the natural gas they needed for power and electricity production with prices well under the world rates. (enriching himself in the process) But his most appreciated contribution to the Zionist regime in Israel was the complete Egyptian withdrawal from actively participating in the key issues of the Arab- Israeli conflict.

Gaza under fire again

Lately, the unrest began to resurface again at the border line between Gaza and Israel. On Friday April 8th Five Palestinians have been killed and around 45 wounded in Israeli air strikes on the Gaza Strip following an offer of a ceasefire from Hamas after a surge in cross-border violence that was dramatically reduced by Israel and sold to the world as the usual "selective" Palestinian attack, by their most primitive handmade rockets, on a school bus – an area of specialty long mastered by the Israelis since Bahr el-Bakar school massacre.

Thus began another expected scenario of disproportionate Israeli attacks on the civilians and children in Gaza with the civilized world muted and turning a blind eye as usual.

The world has grown numb and painfully insensitive to the crimes of Israel against the Arab Palestinians in Gaza and the west bank.

And with judge Richard Goldstone bowing out and going back on his indictment of the Israeli crimes committed during the war on Gaza 2009; the world seems like a barren place for the Palestinians devoid of any free voices left to stand up against the Israeli insolence.

And just when the Palestinians in Gaza thought they were facing this new Israeli attacks alone and with their backs against the wall, they found out they forgot, over the years, that they had brothers in Egypt who are willing not only to accompany them in their struggle against Israel but to protect their backs as well.

Embassy under siege

On the very same day of April 8th and as Egyptians were protesting in Tahrir square demanding that Mubarak and his inner circle of aids to be put on trial and as the news of the Israeli attacks on Gaza made its way to the square at the heart of Cairo, thousands immediately took to the district where the Israeli embassy in Cairo is located.

Egyptians held back – by the military forces- from advancing into the building where the embassy lies practically surrounded the embassy in what seemed like a gigantic human shield. The angry protesters held flags of both Egypt and Palestine and raised big posters of al Aqsa mosque- temple mount in Jerusalem.

On a live coverage by Aljazeera of the march to the Israeli embassy- that somehow failed to make it to the news headlines- some of the protesters expressed their anger at the recent unjust Israeli attacks on Gaza and they made it clear they expected nothing less than the expulsion of the Israeli ambassador out of Egypt and taking the Israeli flag off the embassy building.

Some of the protesters went far as to demand the immediate end to the siege imposed on Gaza from the Egyptian side and a freeze of the Egyptian supply of natural gas to Israel. But the most daring request came by many protesters who called for a public referendum to allow the Egyptian people to have their say about the peace treaty president Sadat had signed 30 years ago.

Amidst that overwhelming atmosphere of antagonism to Israel and its unacceptable and inhuman war of ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians the Israeli embassy at the top floor of the building on the other side of the Nile opposite to Tahrir square found no other option than to dim out the lights and keep its staff hiding inside.

While the Egyptian crowd down in the streets were still swelling in great numbers around the embassy with the intensity of their enthusiasm rising high as they chanted for eternal solidarity with Palestinians the Israeli embassy's lights were almost turned off with the Israeli flag kept as unapparent and way out of sight as possible.

On this April 8th night, and on the very same day that witnessed the massacre of Bahr el-Bakar the Israeli embassy with all the Israeli diplomatic mission in Cairo seemed under siege.

It must have been a terrible night for the Israeli diplomats in Cairo but at least they have experienced, even it was for few hours how it feels to be vulnerable, threatened and under relentless siege.

This public display of the Egyptian anger and dissatisfaction of the Israeli aggressive policy against the Palestinians may pass unreported by the main stream media but never unnoticed by the analysts of the Arab- Israeli conflict especially in the post-Mubarak era in Egypt for what happened on that night of April 8th, 2011 might well depict the scene of the coming Egyptian-Israeli state of affairs.

On this day of commemoration, May the souls of innocent Egyptian and Palestinian children, massacred by the Israeli criminal forces, rest in peace.

* Dr. Ashraf Ezzat: Apart from the medical experience, he's always been engaged in writing activities. He writes articles about ancient Egyptian history, Ancient Near Eastern history, comparative religion and politics especially the Arab- Israeli conflict. Founder and board member of the bibliotheca Alexandrina friends society. Some of His articles have been published in Egyptian magazines and online publications.

Israeli War Criminals Exposed

Although the exposed information does not stand close to the details exposed by Wikileaks about U.S. war crimes in Iraq, but the fact that this is the first time such an information is exposed marks the beginning of more unexpected and unpleasant news to the Israeli officials. We believe that it is only a matter of time before we see more information exposed, which can be more repulsive than what we saw already.

The exposed information (website now closed) triggered Israeli high officials and high-ranking officers from all Israeli security departments to go after the websites that published the information. So far, the original websites were removed completely and other documents' publishing websites decided to remove the material and close the users’ accounts. However, the publisher of the website started an alternative website and republished all the informations again.
Redress is another example. After publishing the material on Scribed, it was removed and its account deleted.

Because this type of information is very important to expose, Sabbah Report is jumping in the wagon and publishing the material for its readers.

We don't expect that the material will be available for long on the current host, but a backup is always ready to republish, so let's play the game of cat and mouse.

Following are the names, photographs and other details of 200 Israeli military commanders of various rank suspected of war crimes during Operation Cast Lead against the people of Gaza, which resulted in the murder of more than 1,400 people, primarily civilians, including over 340 children. The information was received anonymously, presumably from someone with links to the Israeli armed forces.

The officers listed below "held positions of command at the time of the attack" on Gaza and therefore "bear a distinct personal responsibility" for war crimes and crimes against humanity committed against the people of Gaza. They range from low-level field commanders to the highest echelons of the Israeli army. "All took an active and direct role in the offensive."

By publishing the names of these people, the source wishes to draw attention "to individuals rather than the static structures through which they operate."

The source states: "We are aligning people with actions. It is to these persons and others, like them, to which we must object and bring our plaints to bear upon." (Redress)

The file [.PDF] can be viewed here:
http://sabbah.in/aFlAeN

and downloaded from the following link:
http://sabbah.in/cvURie

If you are facing problem downloading the file, we can send it to you by email. Contact us and we'll send it ASAP.

Spread the word and embed code:
<iframe width=100% height=560px frameborder=0 src=https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=false&embedded=true&srcid=0B88UuvjsIhOJNmM3MzM3ODMtMzBhZC00ODViLWFiY2MtYTI0YzU0ZGIwZTQx&hl=en></iframe>

The file is also available as image and can be viewed and downloaded from here:
http://picasaweb.google.com/anti.zionist.forum/IsraeliWarCriminals

By Jeff Gates* | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

Hate is a harsh word. As the counterpoint to love, hate reigns supreme among those emotions that the faith traditions seek to expunge from the human heart.

Hate we're told is the face of evil seen in plumes of smoke and ash on 911. Yet hate also serves a purpose for those adept at catalyzing conflicts.

In the aftermath of that horrific event, hate we're assured is a desired emotional state. Yet induced hate led us into two unwinnable wars. Hate may yet take us into Iran. Or Pakistan.

That hate is also bankrupting us both financially and psychologically.

This 4-part series identifies those who induce us to hate-and describes how.

1. The Hate Mongers Among Us

2. Signs of a Rift with Israel?

3. The Use of Pliable and Reliable Assets to Advance a Narrative

4. Staying on Message to Advance a Narrative

As the "how" of hate mongering becomes transparent, its common source will become apparent. With transparency comes accountability. That's when you can watch for hate to emerge yet again to shield those who hide behind the toxic charge of "anti-Semitism."

With the shared knowledge of how hate is evoked and sustained, those provoked to hate can say with confidence "Never Again" to those complicit in inducing this evil.

Timing is Everything

Hate can be personal or geopolitical. Those who induced us to war in the Middle East made it personal. The murderous provocation of 911 was emotionally wrenching and intensely personal. As a people, our gut reaction ensured that support for the war would become widespread.

In the aftermath of that mass murder on U.S. soil, Martin Peretz, editor of The New Republic, summed up the situation: "We are all Israelis now."

So now we can all be persuaded to hate Muslims-even if we've never met one.

The shared mental environment was flooded with what then seemed like plausible justifications for the invasion of Iraq: Iraqi WMD; Iraqi ties to Al Qaeda; Iraqi meetings with Al Qaeda in Prague; Iraqi mobile biological weapons laboratories; Iraqi purchases of yellowcake uranium from Niger.

We now know that all those rationales were fixed around a preset agenda. Yet a critical mass of false beliefs sufficed to take us to war. For those skilled at inducing hate, consensus beliefs need not be true, they need only be credible-and only for a limited time.

With a corrupt consensus ruling the day, anyone offering proof that Iraq was not a threat was dismissed as unpatriotic or soft on terrorism.

This 911-prompted hate fest started with Iraq, a former ally, as a U.S.-led invasion kicked off The Clash of Civilizations. The bravado of "bring 'em on" quickly became "shock and awe" as a vicious invasion was pursued with a relaxed "Aw Shucks" attitude supported with a media campaign comprised of photo ops of a commander-in-chief nonchalantly clearing brush at his home in Crawford, Texas.

Brand America became "We're still the world's biggest and baddest in the war-waging business. Just you watch."

And watch us go broke as America led an Atlantic coalition that, like Israel, alienated much of the Muslim world.

An Invalid War

Plus there's another strategic problem: our reason for invading Iraq was "invalid." That's the assessment of Defense Secretary Robert Gates. He should know. After the invasion, the invalid storyline quickly shifted to "Saddam the Evil Doer" as our rationale.

How can the rationale be invalid? If we're all Israelis now, surely that entitles us to invade lands belonging to Muslims, kill them, transform them into refugees and, with impunity, create widespread outrage among the broader Muslim population.

Let's fast-forward to nine years after a high-profile slaughter in Manhattan and survey our success in the stark light of hindsight. Are we more secure? Are we more prosperous? Are Americans facing a brighter future? Are our children proud of the outcome?

Israel has occupied Palestinian land for more than six decades. The September 13^th issue of Time magazine captured the Israeli sentiment: "Why Israel Doesn't Care About Peace."

Israelis are too busy prospering to care. Outraged Muslims are a nuisance but they're now largely marginalized and, for the most part, manageable. Is that what happened to us? Have Americans become Israelis?

Not long ago an internal poll of friendly foreign intelligence agencies ranked our best and worst allies-those who behave as friends to the U.S. versus those who are clearly foes. Israel ranked dead last as a reliable ally. Though their brazen theft of technical and industrial secrets is well known among those in the know, the broader U.S. public remains deceived or in denial.

Most Americans still see Israel as an ally. The facts confirm that's a dangerous delusion.

Meanwhile Mossad agents are recruiting Arab-Americans to spy on their neighbors in the U.S. Though Tel Aviv is called on the carpet three times as often as other nations, Israel still ranks third in the aggressiveness of its U.S. operations, behind only China and Russia.

That ranking may well be out of date with Israel now first in foreign operations on U.S. soil.

Other Telling Signs

Zionist Jews deployed terror and intimidation to occupy Muslim lands long before Harry Truman was induced in 1948 to recognize an extremist enclave as a legitimate nation state. Disputes over land remain at the heart of the expansionist agenda for Greater Israel.

On September 7^th, Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas asked that the U.S. settle a dispute over the Israeli expansion of settlements that threaten to derail Mideast peace talks. Those talks have dragged on since 1967. Settling those disputes would disrupt the Zionist agenda.

In a telling rebuke, on September 12^th, Tel Aviv rejected a proposed visit to Israel by the foreign ministers of France, Spain, Britain, Germany and Italy. Why? These senior diplomats sought a remedy to that dispute in order to achieve a long-evasive peace.

Therein lies Israel's strategic strength. Absent this sustained provocation (43 years and counting), hatred might subside and peace may become a possibility. That's a danger Tel Aviv works hard to avoid.

September 12^th also saw the release of a new report indicating that 2,066 new homes would be constructed in the West Bank as soon as the temporary freeze expires September 26^th.

Meanwhile back in the U.S., Americans remain unaware of how many contracts for Homeland Security were awarded to Israeli firms or to firms owned by pro-Israelis. Nor do Americans realize how many Homeland Security outlays have been directed to Jewish community centers.

That's all the more reason for Zionists-both Jewish and Christian-to create an uproar about an Islamic Community Center planned for construction two blocks from the 911 site in Manhattan.

And all the more reason for a Christian-Zionist preacher to designate the ninth anniversary of 911 as "International Burn a Koran Day" at his 50-member church.

The Koran gambit gained global attention, stoked by a media dominated by Jewish Zionists. High profile political personalities ensured that this hate-mongering stunt was kept in the forefront of international news coverage in the lead-up to the anniversary of modern history's best-known hate-mongering provocation.

Signs of a rift between U.S. politicians and U.S. national security

Even with the media support required to sustain hate in plain sight, today's background chatter suggests that those worried about U.S. national security are at work in the shadows to counter the influence of the Israel lobby.

If so, that is good news-for the United States.

When Israeli-American writer Jeff Goldberg appeared again in the news, you knew psy-ops were underway. In March 2002, Goldberg published in The New Yorker a lengthy story alleging an alliance between the religious jihadists of Al Qaeda and the secular Baathists of Iraq.

Though a nonsensical premise, his account made such an alliance appear plausible to a public lacking in knowledge of the Middle East. Goldberg's storyline made it easier for Saddam Hussein to be portrayed as both an Evil Doer and a threat to the U.S.

Goldberg's collaborator was James Woolsey, a former Director of the CIA and an avid Zionist. Woolsey assured us that Iraqi intelligence officials met in Prague with Al Qaeda. By association, his stature in intelligence lent credibility to phony intelligence fixed around an Israeli agenda.

Goldberg reemerged in July to promote Evil Doer status for Iran. Writing in the July 22^nd issue of The Atlantic, he argued the Israeli case for bombing Iran and urged that the U.S. again join the fray. No one in mainstream media mentioned his earlier manipulation.

Based on the consistency of his "journalism," it came as no surprise to see Goldberg reemerge just in time for the ninth anniversary of 911. Aided by an array of false intelligence reported by a complicit media, that murderous provocation helped persuade the U.S. to invade Iraq to remove Evil Doer Saddam Hussein.

That March 2003 agenda was first promoted in 1996 in A Clean Break, a strategy paper written for Benjamin Netanyahu by an Israeli-American team led by Richard Perle. This Jewish-Zionist operative re-emerged in July 2001 to chair the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board where he was joined by Woolsey and others supportive of this Israeli agenda.

Advancing the Narrative

Fast-forward to September 2010 and we find Goldberg back at work promoting his interview with Fidel Castro. Emerging fact patterns suggest it came as no surprise to our national security apparatus that the theme of this latest well-timed Goldberg article was the Cuban leader's concern that Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is "anti-Semitic."

The timing of this report came as a surprise to those aware that Castro has long been critical of Israel's treatment of the Palestinians.

Goldberg reports he was "summoned" to Havana to discuss Castro's fears of a global nuclear war. After conceding in the interview that the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis "wasn't worth it," Castro turned to a theme of topical importance to Tel Aviv, insisting that the Iranian government must understand that Jews "were expelled from their land, persecuted and mistreated all over the world."

Knowing Cuba's pre-revolution alliance with Meyer Lansky and other kingpins in Jewish organized crime, one must wonder if this "journalist" was dispatched to commence negotiations for gambling concessions as a means to fill the Castro government's depleted coffers.

The recent relaxation of restrictions on travel to Cuba may signal a pending return to Cuba's "glory days" as a nearby haven for organized crime.

Castro's well-timed comments about persecuted Jews may have been a signal that Cuba is again open for business-any business. At the very least, his comments were like a healing balm to nationalist Zionist settlers who have plans to construct another 19,000 home in the West Bank.

So much for those who seek to quell Israel's long-running land dispute with the Palestinians in order to keep peace talks on track.

Within two days of the release of the Goldberg interview, vandals in Sacramento, California used a swastika to deface an image of Israeli basketball star Omri Casspi. The identity of the vandals has not been confirmed.

This much has been confirmed: timing is everything when seeking to sustain a storyline. Casting Castro as pro-Israeli was a stroke of genius.

Here's where it starts of get interesting as Americans wake up to find themselves unwitting combatants in the first real Information Age War. When waging modern-day warfare in the shared field of consciousness, media is routinely deployed to displace facts with false beliefs.

Thus the need for substantial and sustained influence in that domain by those determined to shape the political narrative. No one does that better than those who induced the world's greatest super power to wage a war on their behalf.

Recent developments suggest that the dynamics may be shifting in the "field" where political narratives are advanced and where today's wars are either won or lost. That field is the shared field of consciousness where consensus beliefs are created and sustained.

In news reported from the Middle East on September 10, Washington took a surprising stance in support of Iranian claims that Tehran was not building a new uranium enrichment facility. That statement came after an Iranian dissident group, in a well-timed release, charged that Iran had a new secret nuclear site 120 kilometers north of Tehran.

That disclaimer preempted a lead editorial in The New York Times published in the U.S. later that same day-just before the ninth anniversary of 911. That editorial sought to give credence to a report that had already been dismissed as not credible.

Was this an example of U.S. national security attempting to reclaim the narrative? Does this signal a new aggressiveness by the U.S. in waging field-based warfare against those whose successful deceptions led us to war in the Middle East?

Two days prior, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton gave a speech stating "there may not be another chance" for Mideast peace. That statement came the same day that a senior Palestinian negotiator confirmed they would not recognize Israel as a Jewish state. Clinton said nothing.

Could these developments signal a crack in the Zionist agenda that has shaped U.S. foreign policy for more than six decades? Are Zionists losing their chokehold on the White House?

If so, will the Israel lobby again rally Congress to Israel's defense?

Will we see another "unbreakable bond" resolution urging that U.S. interests continue to take second place to Tel Aviv's agenda for the region?

Will the national security interests of the U.S. prevail or will Zionist goals again triumph?

Timing is Everything

While these events were unfolding, The New York Times continued to stoke the controversy surrounding "International Burn A Koran Day."

The nation's "newspaper of record" conceded that this well-timed controversy began with local coverage by The Gainesville Sun (owned by The New York Times) when pastor Terry Jones posted a sign outside his small church that read "Islam is of the devil."

By August 26^th, The Times was prepared to publish a major article on Jones and the anti-Islam views of his 50-member congregation. By September 9^th, Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki was prepared to say with confidence that Zionists were responsible for the Jones plan to burn a Koran on 911.

In a fortuitous case of timing, recordings played in a federal courtroom on September 8^th showed how a government informer induced a 2009 synagogue bomb plot in New York. The recordings made it clear that those on trial as "homegrown terrorists bent on jihad" were not even modestly well versed in Islam. To make a plausible case for later use in the courtroom, the informer prompted comments consistent with the hate-mongering motivation at the heart of the prosecution's case.

Do these small chinks in the Zionist armor suggest that Israeli dominance of U.S. foreign policy may be drawing to a close?

The Use of Pliable and Reliable Assets to Advance a Narrative

Many of America's most prominent political leaders were induced to comment on "International Burn A Koran Day"-a high profile provocation proposed by a Christian-Zionist preacher with a small congregation in a small town in Florida.

When U.S. General David Petraeus spoke out against the proposal, the issue immediately gained an international profile as did Pastor Terry Jones who quickly became an international celebrity.

One need not dig deep to identify who may have advised General Petraeus to grant a global profile to a provocation consistent with Israeli goals for the region.

In March, as head of Central Command, Petraeus offered testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee confirming facts that have long been obvious but are seldom mentioned: our "special relationship" with Israel and its oppressive occupation of Palestine undermine U.S. interests in the Middle East and endanger American personnel. Read it for yourself:

"The enduring hostilities between Israel and some of its neighbors present distinct challenges to our ability to advance our interests... Israeli-Palestinian tensions often flare into violence and large-scale armed confrontations. The conflict foments anti-American sentiment due to a perception of U.S. favoritism for Israel. Arab anger over the Palestinian question limits the strength and depth of U.S. partnerships with governments and peoples in the [region] and weakens the legitimacy of moderate regimes in the Arab world. Meanwhile, al-Qaeda and other militant groups exploit that anger to mobilize support. The conflict also gives Iran influence in the Arab world through its clients, Lebanese Hizballah and Hamas...."

Petraeus is often spoken of as a potential Republican presidential candidate. Thus the chagrin among some in Washington when this high profile military leader appeared to curry favor with Max Boot, a former Wall Street Journal op-ed editor and outspoken Zionist. In an apparent attempt to soften the candor of his written testimony before the Senate, he wrote to Boot:

"Does it help if folks know that I hosted Elie Wiesel and his wife at our quarters last Sun night?! And that I will be the speaker at?the 65^th anniversary of the liberation of the concentration camps in mid-Apr at the Capitol Dome..."

Boot wrote back to assure him that those comments were not necessary as Petraeus had not been described as anti-Semitic. Boot then posted a pro-Petraeus piece on the website for Commentary, a neoconservative publication, assuring readers that the general is not anti-Israel and dismissing his anti-Israel comments as inserted by staff in his statement-that Petraeus reviewed.

The Supporting Cast

After General Petraeus, now senior commander in Afghanistan, created a high profile for the Burn-A-Koran controversy, comments were offered by Attorney General Eric Holder, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and President Barack Obama. With that, the provocation went viral.

These fuel-the-fire comments were followed by a personal appeal to Pastor Jones in a phone call from Defense Secretary Robert Gates that also went viral.

As any game theorist could predict, even the possibility of such a psy-ops (a Koran book burning) was guaranteed to galvanize anti-American sentiments and catalyze anti-American demonstrations. As the book burning gained steadily more profile, this provocation increased the probability of catalyzing long-lasting anti-American sentiments.

This stunt bears a remarkable resemblance to a Newsweek story alleging that a U.S. soldier flushed a Koran down the toilet. Though that May 2005 account by Michael Isikoff was later withdrawn in substantial part, its publication provoked an earlier well-timed response by setting off anti-American demonstrations in Muslim countries worldwide.

At first, the story gained only scant attention. That muted response changed dramatically when Pakistani cricket star Imran Khan gave Isikoff's story an international profile by announcing from Islamabad that American military personnel had desecrated a holy Islamic text.

That's when this Clash of Civilizations-catalyzing, U.S.-discrediting account went viral. In practical effect, Khan's celebrity was appropriated to associate the U.S. military with conduct similar in its psy-ops effect to the profile given an American proposing to burn a Koran.

Newsweek was recently acquired by Sidney Harman, the husband of California Congresswoman Jane Harman, the Jewish Zionist chair of the Intelligence Subcommittee of the House Committee on Homeland Security. At the time of this provocation, Newsweek was a magazine affiliate of The Washington Post newspaper, an influential opinion-shaping newspaper based in the nation's capital.

In the annals of "field-based warfare," the Koran-flushing story will go down in history as a classic psy-ops for its success in targeting the minds of a built-in audience outside the U.S.-cricket fans-as a vulnerable and receptive shared field of consciousness.

When the high-profile Imran Khan described the alleged incident as factual, this operation transcended the literacy barrier as it provoked Muslims who did not even need to read in order to be reached-and provoked.

And because the story targeted cricket fans, its impact was disastrous to Americans while also remaining invisible to America where cricket is neither a well known activity nor a widely played sport.

In what passes for mainstream American media, the Isikoff story was called news. In national security parlance, the well-timed launch of that provocative storyline is called tactical psy-ops. So far, the Koran-burning story is being attributed solely to the whims of a southern preacher.

Stay tuned. It may be only a coincidence that Jones was a high school classmate of Rush Limbaugh, America's most provocative radio talk show host.

Information Age Warfare

If this sounds familiar, it should. You may recall when the wartime role played by global media became apparent in the Clash-catalyzing "cartoon riots" that swept the world in February 2006. That reaction followed the publication in France, Germany, Italy and Spain of graphic images of the prophet Muhammad that first appeared in a Danish newspaper in September 2005.

Citing free speech as the rationale, cultural editor Flemming Rose published a compilation of cartoons certain to be seen by Muslims as blasphemous, including one featuring Muhammad with a bomb in place of a turban.

An Ashkenazi native of Ukraine, Rose worked as a reporter for five years in Moscow during the oligarchi-zation of Russia. As his contribution to that nationwide fraud, he translated into Danish a fawning 1990 autobiography (Against the Stream) of presidential candidate Boris Yeltsin whose administration enabled the wildly successful financial pillaging of Russia.

Six of the top seven Russian oligarchs were Ashkenazim who qualified for Israeli citizenship.

Rose's career tracks the trajectory of a typical media asset. After Russia, he relocated to Washington, D.C. Again employed as a journalist, he traveled to China with Bill Clinton before returning to Moscow to work for Jyllands-Posten, a rightwing Danish publication known for its anti-immigrant news fare.

Before catalyzing the cartoon crisis, Rose published a flattering interview with the Islam-bashing Daniel Pipes who heads Campus Watch. This organization monitors, disrupts and seeks to intimidate pro-Palestinian speakers when they accept invitations to speak at U.S. colleges.

Pipes is the neoconservative, Jewish-Zionist son of "Team B" leader Richard Pipes a Polish emigre. Team B was a 1976 alternative intelligence assessment whose success with phony intelligence during the presidency of Gerald Ford (when G.H.W. Bush was C.I.A. Director) informed those who fixed the intelligence that enabled the U.S. to segue seamlessly from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism during the presidency of G.W. Bush.

After the promotion of Rose to cultural editor and publication of the provocative cartoons, CNN anchor Wolf Blitzer featured Pipes on The Situation Room. By showcasing Pipes, Blitzer ensured the airwaves would carry his anti-Islam interpretation of the Rose-catalyzed, media-fueled crisis.

Blitzer elected not to inform the viewers of CNN ("the most trusted name in news") that he (Blitzer) served as an editor of Near East Report, the Israel lobby's in-house journal, or that he spent 17 years with The Jerusalem Post, or that he published a sympathetic book on Israeli super-spy Jonathan Pollard who did more than anyone in history to damage U.S. national security.

The ensuing crisis cost many lives while the reaction to that provocation consumed the public's attention and polarized public opinion internationally. Appearing on television, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice used the crisis to criticize Iran and Syria, adding American credibility and military authority to stoke The Clash of Civilizations as the post-Cold War narrative.

Overall, the response heightened tensions and made an attack on Iran appear more reasonable as scenes of widespread outrage by Muslims fueled Islamo-phobia in the West. To escape the media scrutiny, Rose fled to the U.S. where he vacationed in Miami.

Timing is Everything

The usual suspects stepped into the fray in support of Pastor Terry Jones' First Amendment right to further outrage an already outraged Muslim population for whom the Koran is a sacred text.

Supporting cast for the Jones stunt included New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg who chose an annual Iftar dinner at Gracie Mansion to cite the U.S. Constitution in support of this provocation. Likewise for New York Times columnist Charles Blow whose prominently placed op-ed on September 11^th urged that "great American debates" should not be "tempered for terrorists."

National security may (at long last) be catching on to how those complicit in these psy-ops use our guaranteed freedoms (of speech, press, religion, etc.) to undermine our freedom. It's no coincidence that those most concerned about domestic eavesdropping by national security are drawn from the same ranks as those complicit in this ongoing manipulation of public opinion.

The high profile nature of this latest 911 anniversary ensured that agent provocateurs would use the event to keep hate alive. The day prior, President Obama urged that Israel extend its "temporary partial freeze" on settlements for the sake of sustaining the peace talks.

Meanwhile Jewish Zionist Pamela Geller sponsored a speech at Ground Zero by Dutch politician Geert Wilders who likens the Koran to Mein Kampf. A staunch supporter of Israel, Wilders is known for his incendiary speeches with a strong anti-Islam theme.

Geller, a disciple of Russian philosopher Ayn Rand (Alisa Rosenbaum), advocates measures to "Stop Islamization of America." She emphasizes the role of Barack Obama in doing the bidding of "Islamic overlords" in what she calls "The Obama Administration's War on America."

An outspoken Jewish Zionist, Geller urges that Israel "give up nothing." A regular commentator on Zionist-dominated media outlets (CNN, Fox News, The Washington Post, The New York Times), she insists that Israel should "take back Gaza" and "secure Judea and Samaria"-better known as the West Bank, the key area of contention on expansion of the settlements.

Geller is also a driving force behind anti-Islam hate groups working to scuttle plans for an Islamic Cultural Center two blocks from the 911 site. Allied with others in the hate campaign, she was among the first in November 2009 to describe the shootings on Fort Hood, Texas as a "Muslim terror attack."

Staying on message to advance the narrative

Keeping the "anti-Semitism" theme front-and-center remains essential to advance the hate-monger's narrative with the assistance of mainstream media.

Thus the Anti-Defamation League criticized the current cover of Time magazine for what ADL President Abe Foxman suggested was a portrayal of Israelis as more interested in making money than in striking a peace accord with the Palestinians.

The article highlighted Israel's booming real estate market and the pleasure Israelis are taking in late-Summer vacations.

Nevertheless, according to Foxman: "The insidious subtext of Israeli Jews being obsessed with money echoes the age-old anti-Semitic falsehood that Jews care about money above any other interest, in this case achieving peace with the Palestinians."

Foxman insisted that Managing Editor Richard Stengel issue an apology to readers both for the timing of the article and for calling up old anti-Semitic stereotypes about Jews and money.

As if right on cue, the next day filmmaker Michael Moore jumped into the Islamic Cultural Center debate, arguing that the center should not be near the 911 site but inside it as a way for Muslims to recover their religion from Islamic extremists.

In his branded controversial style, Moore could have left it at that. Instead, he used his assured media profile to relate an account of George Washington's wish to see Jews receive equal rights.

Impressionistic Warfare

From a psy-ops perspective, the subject matter is secondary to the impressions left with the public. The imbedding of imagery and emotion is the strategic purpose of much of what you see.

For instance, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, speaking to ABC's "This Week," said on September 12^th that the controversy over the site of an Islamic Cultural Center has heightened concerns among Muslims of rising anti-Muslim sentiment, saying he felt there was "growing Islamophobia in this country."

That's a foreseeable result of creating widely shared impressions that foster and sustain widely shared beliefs that, in turn, are kept intact with emotional triggers. That's how the hate-monger narrative progresses in plain sight.

When waging war in the shared field of consciousness, the most powerful weapon is often the power of association. Michael Moore's film success shows how it's done.

In his popular Fahrenheit 911, he deployed impressionistic "weaponry" to associate the war in Iraq with "Bush Oil." How was that done? He showed on film that one of the several dozen siblings of Osama bin Laden served on the board of advisers to the Carlyle Group, an investment banking firm in Washington, D.C.

Also serving on that board was former president George H.W. Bush, the father of George W. Bush. Therefore, by the power of association, the war in Iraq was for "Bush Oil." Storylines don't need to true, just plausible. The point of psy-ops is not reality but credibility.

Impressions gain the traction required to advance a storyline-in plain sight.

Consensus beliefs create and sustain a narrative-in plain sight.

Psy-ops succeed when they attract enough eyeballs to misdirect the public's attention-in plain sight.

Fahrenheit 911 was produced by Miramax, a Disney subsidiary. Miramax co-chairman Harvey Weinstein loudly claimed that Disney reneged on its promise to distribute Moore's film. Disney chief executive Michael Eisner objected-just as loudly.

The high profile sparing between these two Hollywood titans dragged on for months in mainstream media. By the time the film was released, the interest generated by this "dispute" ensured that Moore's film opened on a record number of screens for a "documentary."

At virtually no cost, that public relations ploy helped ensure an international audience for a film that discredited not only the U.S. but also the office of the president. In its practical effect, the Moore film helped ensure there was virtually no mention of how key Zionist goals were advanced by this war-in plain sight.

Real-time Terror

Meanwhile, September 12^th news reports highlighted the extradition to France from Egypt of a terrorist who reportedly planned to bomb an Israel Defense Forces event in Paris. Noticeably absent were facts about the timeframe of this threat or even when the arrest was made.

That account provided an opportunity for the chief of French intelligence to make a high profile announcement that the risk of a terrorist attack on France "has never been higher." This week, the French Senate is scheduled to vote a ban on wearing Islamic veils known as burgas, a vote certain to reinforce The Clash of Civilizations as the consensus narrative

Also on September 12^th, the leader of Shin Bet announced in Tel Aviv: "Hamas forces in Gaza and the West Bank are engaged in an effort to foil peace talks." Israel's domestic security chief told cabinet ministers "threats are due to increase in the near future, as diplomatic developments occur...This isn't just an estimate but is supported by real intelligence."

Unmentioned in this volatile mix is the psychology of the hate monger. The purveyors of hate routinely project onto their opponents both their own personality traits (hatred) and, as here, their anticipated agenda. This announcement is far more likely to mean that Shin Bet will stage provocations designed to make it appear that Hamas is the instigator of violence.

For the Zionist agenda to continue in plain sight, peace must be avoided no matter what the cost. Disruption of the peace process, in turn, must plausibly be the work of others. The hate monger must appear to be hated; the aggressor must plausibly appear to be the victim.

Thus the need to portray as anti-Semitic (a hater) those who document the dynamics of how hate-mongers induce hate-in plain sight.

The Assassination of Bibi Netanyahu

Should we see a revival of the U.S. national security apparatus, we will also see a push back against the right-wing extremist coalitions that have long ruled Israel. However, any resistance to the Zionist agenda runs the risk that Israel's masters of game theory warfare will collapse another government.

That's how Tel Aviv responded when in June 1963, President John F. Kennedy pressured David Ben-Gurion for inspections of Israel's nuclear facility at Dimona. This young president sought to ensure that the Zionists of that era did not start a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. He foresaw what we now see.

Before JFK's strongly worded letter could be physically delivered, Ben-Gurion resigned citing undisclosed personal reasons. By the time a replacement governing coalition was in place and fully functional, the Kennedy problem had been handled.

In the parlance of national security, that's called an entropy strategy.

Fast-emerging circumstances suggest the likelihood of a similar strategy, particularly should there emerge any prospect of peace with the Palestinians. As Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman candidly put it, peace is impossible: "not next year and not for the next generation."

Should "Bibi" pressure his fragile governing coalition for an extension of the "temporary partial freeze" on settlements, members of his nationalist government could withdraw, collapsing the government. Key members of the coalition signaled their intentions on September 12^th by announcing that any extension of the freeze will end the Netanyahu government.

On September 13^th, four Likud Party members threatened to withdraw budget support if the freeze is extended. That threat was issued as Netanyahu departed for peace talks in Sharm el-Sheikh with Palestinian leaders and U.S. Secretary of State Clinton.

The recurring possibility of governmental collapse has long given Tel Aviv leverage over peace talks sought by the U.S. That era may soon draw to a close if our national security apparatus is now guiding U.S. foreign policy. To date, our elected officials have proven themselves unable to navigate through the manipulations often deployed by Israel to stymie agreement on the terms of a peace accord.

Tel Aviv knows the power that the perception of political vulnerability offers in negotiations. When the game theory dynamics of Israeli psy-ops are fully grasped, that leverage will quickly dissipate as negotiators realize they have long been manipulated. That makes the duplicity personal.

The key barrier to realization is the fast-fading belief among policy-makers in the U.S. and the E.U. that Israel is an ally and a friend rather than a sophisticated foe skilled at using deception to leverage its small numbers to great effect.

Though collapse is one possible strategy, Bibi may instead be assassinated.

The threads of a plausible storyline were laid in a September 9^th article on Haaretz.com where he was compared to French president Charles de Gaulle against whom French nationalists staged numerous assassination attempts.

Either approach would inject enough entropy into the peace process to sustain the Palestinian conflict and extend the occupation yet again.

Either strategy would strengthen the hand of the hate-mongers as settlers build another 19,000 homes and U.S. legislators continue to pretend that the Zionist state is a victim of anti-Semitism rather than a serial agent provocateur.

* Jeff Gates is a widely acclaimed author, attorney, investment banker, educator and consultant to government, corporate and union leaders worldwide, Jeff Gates' latest book is Guilt by Association -How Deception and Self-Deceit Took America to War (2008) his first release in the Criminal State series. His previous books include Democracy At Risk and The Ownership Solution. See his website Criminal State

Guns and Butter interview with Former head of Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), General Hamid Gul.

By Michel Chossudovsky* | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

This article summarizes earlier writings by the author on 9/11 and the role of Al Qaeda in US foreign policy. For further details see Michel Chossudovsky, America's "War on Terrorism", Global Research, 2005

"The United States spent millions of dollars to supply Afghan schoolchildren with textbooks filled with violent images and militant Islamic teachings....The primers, which were filled with talk of jihad and featured drawings of guns, bullets, soldiers and mines, have served since then as the Afghan school system's core curriculum. Even the Taliban used the American-produced books,..", (Washington Post, 23 March 2002)

"Advertisements, paid for from CIA funds, were placed in newspapers and newsletters around the world offering inducements and motivations to join the [Islamic] Jihad." (Pervez Hoodbhoy, Peace Research, 1 May 2005)

"Bin Laden recruited 4,000 volunteers from his own country and developed close relations with the most radical mujahideen leaders. He also worked closely with the CIA, ... Since September 11, [2001] CIA officials have been claiming they had no direct link to bin Laden." (Phil Gasper, International Socialist Review, November-December 2001)

• Osama bin Laden, America's bogyman, was recruited by the CIA in 1979 at the very outset of the US sponsored jihad. He was 22 years old and was trained in a CIA sponsored guerilla training camp.
• The architects of the covert operation in support of "Islamic fundamentalism" launched during the Reagan presidency played a key role in launching the "Global War on Terrorism" in the wake of 9/11.
• President Ronald Reagan met the leaders of the Islamic Jihad at the White House in 1983
• Under the Reagan adminstration, US foreign policy evolved towards the unconditional support and endorsement of the Islamic "freedom fighters". In today's World, the "freedom fighters" are labelled "Islamic terrorists".
• In the Pashtun language, the word "Taliban" means "Students", or graduates of the madrasahs (places of learning or coranic schools) set up by the Wahhabi missions from Saudi Arabia, with the support of the CIA. Education in the years preceding the Soviet-Afghan war war largely secular in Afghanistan. The number of CIA sponsored religious schools (madrasahs) increased from 2,500 in 1980 to over 39,000.

The Soviet-Afghan war was part of a CIA covert agenda initiated during the Carter administration, which consisted in actively supporting and financing the Islamic brigades, later known as Al Qaeda.

The Pakistani military regime played from the outset in the late 1970s, a key role in the US sponsored military and intelligence operations in Afghanistan. in the post-Cold war era, this central role of Pakistan in US intelligence operations was extended to the broader Central Asia- Middle East region. From the outset of the Soviet Afghan war in 1979, Pakistan under military rule actively supported the Islamic brigades. In close liaison with the CIA, Pakistan's military intelligence, the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), became a powerful organization, a parallel government, wielding tremendous power and influence.

America's covert war in Afghanistan, using Pakistan as a launch pad, was initiated during the Carter administration prior to the Soviet "invasion":

"According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahideen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention." (Former National Security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski, Interview with Le Nouvel Observateur, 15-21 January 1998)

Defense Secretary Robert Gates

With CIA backing and the funneling of massive amounts of U.S. military aid, the Pakistani ISI had developed into a "parallel structure wielding enormous power over all aspects of government". (Dipankar Banerjee, "Possible Connection of ISI With Drug Industry", India Abroad, 2 December 1994). The ISI had a staff composed of military and intelligence officers, bureaucrats, undercover agents and informers, estimated at 150,000. (Ibid)

Meanwhile, CIA operations had also reinforced the Pakistani military regime led by General Zia Ul Haq:

"Relations between the CIA and the ISI had grown increasingly warm following [General] Zia's ouster of Bhutto and the advent of the military regime. ... During most of the Afghan war, Pakistan was more aggressively anti-Soviet than even the United States. Soon after the Soviet military invaded Afghanistan in 1980, Zia [ul Haq] sent his ISI chief to destabilize the Soviet Central Asian states. The CIA only agreed to this plan in October 1984." (Ibid)

The ISI operating virtually as an affiliate of the CIA, played a central role in channeling support to Islamic paramilitary groups in Afghanistan and subsequently in the Muslim republics of the former Soviet Union.

Acting on behalf of the CIA, the ISI was also involved in the recruitment and training of the Mujahideen. In the ten year period from 1982 to 1992, some 35,000 Muslims from 43 Islamic countries were recruited to fight in the Afghan jihad. The madrassas in Pakistan, financed by Saudi charities, were also set up with US support with a view to "inculcating Islamic values". "The camps became virtual universities for future Islamic radicalism," (Ahmed Rashid, The Taliban). Guerilla training under CIA-ISI auspices included targeted assassinations and car bomb attacks.

"Weapons' shipments "were sent by the Pakistani army and the ISI to rebel camps in the North West Frontier Province near the Afghanistan border. The governor of the province is Lieutenant General Fazle Haq, who [according to Alfred McCoy] . allowed "hundreds of heroin refineries to set up in his province." Beginning around 1982, Pakistani army trucks carrying CIA weapons from Karachi often pick up heroin in Haq's province and return loaded with heroin. They are protected from police search by ISI papers."(1982-1989: US Turns Blind Eye to BCCI and Pakistani Government Involvement in Heroin Trade See also McCoy, 2003, p. 477) .

Front row, from left: Major Gen. Hamid Gul, director general of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate (ISI), Director of Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Willian Webster; Deputy Director for Operations Clair George; an ISI colonel; and senior CIA official, Milt Bearden at a mujahedeen training camp in North-West Frontier Province of Pakistan in 1987. (source RAWA)

Osama Bin Laden

Osama bin Laden, America's bogyman, was recruited by the CIA in 1979 at the very outset of the US sponsored jihad. He was 22 years old and was trained in a CIA sponsored guerilla training camp.

During the Reagan administration, Osama, who belonged to the wealthy Saudi Bin Laden family was put in charge of raising money for the Islamic brigades. Numerous charities and foundations were created. The operation was coordinated by Saudi intelligence, headed by Prince Turki al-Faisal, in close liaison with the CIA. The money derived from the various charities were used to finance the recruitment of Mujahieen volunteers. Al Qaeda, the base in Arabic was a data bank of volunteers who had enlisted to fight in the Afghan jihad. That data base was initially held by Osama bin Laden.

The Reagan Administration supports "Islamic Fundamentalism"

Pakistan's ISI was used as a "go-between". CIA covert support to the Mujahideen in Afghanistan operated indirectly through the Pakistani ISI, --i.e. the CIA did not channel its support directly to the Mujahideen. In other words, for these covert operations to be "successful", Washington was careful not to reveal the ultimate objective of the "jihad", which consisted in destroying the Soviet Union.

In December 1984, the Sharia Law (Islamic jurisprudence) was established in Pakistan following a rigged referendum launched by President Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq. Barely a few months later, in March 1985, President Ronald Reagan issued National Security Decision Directive 166 (NSDD 166), which authorized "stepped-up covert military aid to the Mujahideen" as well a support to religious indoctrination.

The imposition of The Sharia in Pakistan and the promotion of "radical Islam" was a deliberate US policy serving American geopolitical interests in South Asia, Central Asia and the Middle East. Many present-day "Islamic fundamentalist organizations" in the Middle East and Central Asia, were directly or indirectly the product of US covert support and financing, often channeled through foundations from Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States. Missions from the Wahhabi sect of conservative Islam in Saudi Arabia were put in charge of running the CIA sponsored madrassas in Northern Pakistan.

Under NSDD 166, a series of covert CIA-ISI operations was launched.

The US supplied weapons to the Islamic brigades through the ISI. CIA and ISI officials would meet at ISI headquarters in Rawalpindi to coordinate US support to the Mujahideen. Under NSDD 166, the procurement of US weapons to the Islamic insurgents increased from 10,000 tons of arms and ammunition in 1983 to 65,000 tons annually by 1987. "In addition to arms, training, extensive military equipment including military satellite maps and state-of-the-art communications equipment" (University Wire, 7 May 2002).

Ronald Reagan meets Afghan Mujahideen Commanders at the White House in 1985 (Reagan Archives)

With William Casey as director of the CIA, NSDD 166 was described as the largest covert operation in US history:

The U.S. supplied support package had three essential components-organization and logistics, military technology, and ideological support for sustaining and encouraging the Afghan resistance....

U.S. counterinsurgency experts worked closely with the Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) in organizing Mujahideen groups and in planning operations inside Afghanistan.

... But the most important contribution of the U.S. was to ... bring in men and material from around the Arab world and beyond. The most hardened and ideologically dedicated men were sought on the logic that they would be the best fighters. Advertisements, paid for from CIA funds, were placed in newspapers and newsletters around the world offering inducements and motivations to join the Jihad. (Pervez Hoodbhoy, Afghanistan and the Genesis of the Global Jihad, Peace Research, 1 May 2005)

Religious Indoctrination

Under NSDD 166, US assistance to the Islamic brigades channeled through Pakistan was not limited to bona fide military aid. Washington also supported and financed by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), the process of religious indoctrination, largely to secure the demise of secular institutions:

... the United States spent millions of dollars to supply Afghan schoolchildren with textbooks filled with violent images and militant Islamic teachings, part of covert attempts to spur resistance to the Soviet occupation.

The primers, which were filled with talk of jihad and featured drawings of guns, bullets, soldiers and mines, have served since then as the Afghan school system's core curriculum. Even the Taliban used the American-produced books,..

The White House defends the religious content, saying that Islamic principles permeate Afghan culture and that the books "are fully in compliance with U.S. law and policy." Legal experts, however, question whether the books violate a constitutional ban on using tax dollars to promote religion.

... AID officials said in interviews that they left the Islamic materials intact because they feared Afghan educators would reject books lacking a strong dose of Muslim thought. The agency removed its logo and any mention of the U.S. government from the religious texts, AID spokeswoman Kathryn Stratos said.

"It's not AID's policy to support religious instruction," Stratos said. "But we went ahead with this project because the primary purpose . . . is to educate children, which is predominantly a secular activity."

... Published in the dominant Afghan languages of Dari and Pashtun, the textbooks were developed in the early 1980s under an AID grant to the University of Nebraska -Omaha and its Center for Afghanistan Studies. The agency spent $ 51 million on the university's education programs in Afghanistan from 1984 to 1994." (Washington Post, 23 March 2002)

The Role of the NeoCons

There is continuity. The architects of the covert operation in support of "Islamic fundamentalism" launched during the Reagan presidency played a key role in role in launching the "Global War on Terrorism" in the wake of 9/11.

Several of the NeoCons of the Bush Junior Administration were high ranking officials during the Reagan presidency.

Richard Armitage, was Deputy Secretary of State during George W. Bush's first term (2001-2004). He played a central key role in post 9/11 negotiations with Pakistan leading up to the October 2001 invasion of Afghanistan. During the Reagan era, he held the position of Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy. In this capacity, he played a key role in the implementation of NSDD 163 while also ensuring liaison with the Pakistani military and intelligence apparatus.

Meanwhile, Paul Wolfowitz was at the State Department in charge of a foreign policy team composed, among others, of Lewis Libby, Francis Fukuyama and Zalmay Khalilzad. Wolfowitz's group was also involved in laying the conceptual groundwork of US covert support to Islamic parties and organizations in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Bush's Secretary of Defence Robert Gates also was also involved in setting the groundwork for CIA covert operations. He was appointed Deputy Director for Intelligence by Ronald Reagan in 1982, and Deputy Director of the CIA in 1986, a position which he held until 1989. Gates played a key role in the formulation of NSDD 163, which established a consistent framework for promoting Islamic fundamentalism and channeling covert support to the Islamic brigades. He was also involved in the Iran Contra scandal. .

The Iran Contra Operation

Richard Gates, Colin Powell and Richard Armitage, among others, were also involved in the Iran-Contra operation.

Armitage was in close liaison with Colonel Oliver North. His deputy and chief anti-terrorist official Noel Koch was part of the team set up by Oliver North.

Of significance, the Iran-Contra operation was also tied into the process of channeling covert support to the Islamic brigades in Afghanistan. The Iran Contra scheme served several related foreign policy:

1) Procurement of weapons to Iran thereby feeding the Iraq-Iran war,

2) Support to the Nicaraguan Contras,

3) Support to the Islamic brigades in Afghanistan, channeled via Pakistan's ISI.

Following the delivery of the TOW anti-tank missiles to Iran, the proceeds of these sales were deposited in numbered bank accounts and the money was used to finance the Nicaraguan Contras. and the Mujahideen:

"The Washington Post reported that profits from the Iran arms sales were deposited in one CIA-managed account into which the U.S. and Saudi Arabia had placed $250 million apiece. That money was disbursed not only to the contras in Central America but to the rebels fighting Soviet troops in Afghanistan." (US News & World Report, 15 December 1986).

Although Lieutenant General Colin Powell, was not directly involved in the arms' transfer negotiations, which had been entrusted to Oliver North, he was among "at least five men within the Pentagon who knew arms were being transferred to the CIA." (The Record, 29 December 1986). In this regard, Powell was directly instrumental in giving the "green light" to lower-level officials in blatant violation of Congressional procedures. According to the New York Times, Colin Powell took the decision (at the level of military procurement), to allow the delivery of weapons to Iran:

"Hurriedly, one of the men closest to Secretary of Defense Weinberger, Maj. Gen. Colin Powell, bypassed the written ''focal point system'' procedures and ordered the Defense Logistics Agency [responsible for procurement] to turn over the first of 2,008 TOW missiles to the CIA., which acted as cutout for delivery to Iran" (New York Times, 16 February 1987)

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates was also implicated in the Iran-Contra Affair.

The Golden Crescent Drug Trade

The history of the drug trade in Central Asia is intimately related to the CIA's covert operations. Prior to the Soviet-Afghan war, opium production in Afghanistan and Pakistan was directed to small regional markets. There was no local production of heroin. (Alfred McCoy, Drug Fallout: the CIA's Forty Year Complicity in the Narcotics Trade. The Progressive, 1 August 1997).

Alfred McCoy's study confirms that within two years of the onslaught of the CIA operation in Afghanistan, "the Pakistan-Afghanistan borderlands became the world's top heroin producer." (Ibid) Various Islamic paramilitary groups and organizations were created. The proceeds of the Afghan drug trade, which was protected by the CIA, were used to finance the various insurgencies:

"Under CIA and Pakistani protection, Pakistan military and Afghan resistance opened heroin labs on the Afghan and Pakistani border. According to The Washington Post of May 1990, among the leading heroin manufacturers were Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, an Afghan leader who received about half of the covert arms that the U.S. shipped to Pakistan. Although there were complaints about Hekmatyar's brutality and drug trafficking within the ranks of the Afghan resistance of the day, the CIA maintained an uncritical alliance and supported him without reservation or restraint.

Once the heroin left these labs in Pakistan's northwest frontier, the Sicilian Mafia imported the drugs into the U.S., where they soon captured sixty percent of the U.S. heroin market. That is to say, sixty percent of the U.S. heroin supply came indirectly from a CIA operation. During the decade of this operation, the 1980s, the substantial DEA contingent in Islamabad made no arrests and participated in no seizures, allowing the syndicates a de facto free hand to export heroin. By contrast, a lone Norwegian detective, following a heroin deal from Oslo to Karachi, mounted an investigation that put a powerful Pakistani banker known as President Zia's surrogate son behind bars. The DEA in Islamabad got nobody, did nothing, stayed away.

Former CIA operatives have admitted that this operation led to an expansion of the Pakistan-Afghanistan heroin trade. In 1995 the former CIA Director of this Afghan operation, Mr. Charles Cogan, admitted sacrificing the drug war to fight the Cold War. "Our main mission was to do as much damage to the Soviets. We didn't really have the resources or the time to devote to an investigation of the drug trade," he told Australian television. "I don't think that we need to apologize for this. Every situation has its fallout. There was fallout in terms of drugs, yes, but the main objective was accomplished. The Soviets left Afghanistan." (Alfred McCoy, Testimony before the Special Seminar focusing on allegations linking CIA secret operations and drug trafficking-convened February 13, 1997, by Rep. John Conyers, Dean of the Congressional Black Caucus)

Lucrative Narcotics Trade in the Post Cold War Era

The drug trade has continued unabated during the post Cold war years. Afghanistan became the major supplier of heroin to Western markets, in fact almost the sole supplier: more than 90 percent of the heroin sold Worldwide originates in Afghanistan. This lucrative contraband is tied into Pakistani politics and the militarization of the Pakistani State. It also has a direct bearing on the structure of the Pakistani economy and its banking and financial institutions, which from the outset of the Golden Crescent drug trade have been involved in extensive money laundering operations, which are protected by the Pakistani military and intelligence apparatus:

According to the US State Department International Narcotics Control Strategy Report (2006) (quoted in Daily Times, 2 March 2006),

"Pakistani criminal networks play a central role in the transshipment of narcotics and smuggled goods from Afghanistan to international markets. Pakistan is a major drug-transit country. The proceeds of narcotics trafficking and funding for terrorist activities are often laundered by means of the alternative system called hawala. ... .

"Repeatedly, a network of private unregulated charities has also emerged as a significant source of illicit funds for international terrorist networks," the report pointed out. ... "

The hawala system and the charities are but the tip of the iceberg. According to the State Department report, "the State Bank of Pakistan has frozen more twenty years] a meager $10.5 million "belonging to 12 entities and individuals linked to Osama bin Laden, Al Qaeda or the Taliban". What the report fails to mention is that the bulk of the proceeds of the Afghan drug trade are laundered in bona fide Western banking institutions.

The Taliban Repress the Drug Trade

A major and unexpected turnaround in the CIA sponsored drug trade occurred in 2000.

The Taliban government which came to power in 1996 with Washington's support, implemented in 2000-2001 a far-reaching opium eradication program with the support of the United Nations which served to undermine a multibillion dollar trade. (For further details see, Michel Chossudovsky, America's War on Terrorism, Global Research, 2005).

In 2001 prior to the US-led invasion, opium production under the Taliban eradication program declined by more than 90 percent.

In the immediate wake of the US led invasion, the Bush administration ordered that the opium harvest not be destroyed on the fabricated pretext that this would undermine the military government of Pervez Musharraf.

"Several sources inside Capitol Hill noted that the CIA opposes the destruction of the Afghan opium supply because to do so might destabilize the Pakistani government of Gen. Pervez Musharraf. According to these sources, Pakistani intelligence had threatened to overthrow President Musharraf if the crops were destroyed. ...

'If they [the CIA] are in fact opposing the destruction of the Afghan opium trade, it'll only serve to perpetuate the belief that the CIA is an agency devoid of morals; off on their own program rather than that of our constitutionally elected government'" .(NewsMax.com, 28 March 2002)

Since the US led invasion, opium production has increased 33 fold from 185 tons in 2001 under the Taliban to 6100 tons in 2006. Cultivated areas have increased 21 fold since the 2001 US-led invasion. (Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, 6 January 2006)

In 2007, Afghanistan supplied approximately 93% of the global supply of heroin. The proceeds (in terms of retail value) of the Afghanistan drug trade are estimated (2006) to be in excess of 190 billion dollars a year, representing a significant fraction of the global trade in narcotics.(Ibid)

The proceeds of this lucrative multibillion dollar contraband are deposited in Western banks. Almost the totality of the revenues accrue to corporate interests and criminal syndicates outside Afghanistan.

The laundering of drug money constitutes a multibillion dollar activity, which continues to be protected by the CIA and the ISI. In the wake of the 2001 US invasion of Afghanistan.

In retrospect, one of the major objectives of the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan was to restore the drug trade.

The militarization of Pakistan serves powerful political, financial and criminal interests underlying the drug trade. US foreign policy tends to support these powerful interests. The CIA continues to protect the Golden Crescent narcotics trade. Despite his commitment to eradicating the drug trade, opium production under the regime of Afghan President Hamid Karzai has skyrocketed.

The Assassination of General Zia Ul-Haq

In August 1988, President Zia was killed in an air crash together with US Ambassador to Pakistan Arnold Raphel and several of Pakistan's top generals. The circumstances of the air crash remain shrouded in mystery.

Following Zia's death, parliamentary elections were held and Benazir Bhutto was sworn in as Prime Minister in December 1988. She was subsequently removed from office by Zia's successor, President Ghulam Ishaq Khan on the grounds of alleged corruption. In 1993, she was re-elected and was again removed from office in 1996 on the orders of President Farooq Leghari.

Continuity has been maintained throughout. Under the short-lived post-Zia elected governments of Nawaz Sharif and Benazir Bhutto, the central role of the military-intelligence establishment and its links to Washington were never challenged.

Both Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif served US foreign policy interests. While in power, both democratically elected leaders, nonetheless supported the continuity of military rule. As prime minister from 1993 to 1996, Benazir Bhutto "advocated a conciliatory policy toward Islamists, especially the Taliban in Afghanistan" which were being supported by Pakistan's ISI (See F. William Engdahl, Global Research, January 2008)

Benazir Bhutto's successor as Prime Minister, Mia Muhammad Nawaz Sharif of the Pakistan Muslim League (PML) was deposed in 1999 in a US supported coup d'Etat led by General Pervez Musharraf.

The 1999 coup was instigated by General Pervez Musharaf, with the support of the Chief of General Staff, Lieutenant General Mahmoud Ahmad, who was subsequently appointed to the key position of head of military intelligence (ISI).

Chief of General Staff, Lieutenant General Mahmoud Ahmad

Concluding Remarks

These various "terrorist" organizations were created as a result of CIA support. They are not the product of religion. The project to establish "a pan-Islamic Caliphate" is part of a carefully devised intelligence operation.

CIA support to Al Qaeda was not in any way curtailed at the end of the Cold War. In fact quite the opposite. The earlier pattern of covert support not only extended, it took on a global thrust and became increasingly sophisticated.

The "Global War on Terrorism" is a complex and intricate intelligence construct. The covert support provided to "Islamic extremist groups" is part of an imperial agenda. It purports to weaken and eventually destroy secular and civilian governmental institutions, while also contributing to vilifying Islam. It is an instrument of colonization which seeks to undermine sovereign nation-states and transform countries into territories.

For the intelligence operation to be successful, however, the various Islamic organizations created and trained by the CIA must remain unaware of the role they are performing on geopolitical chessboard, on behalf of Washington.

Over the years, these organizations have indeed acquired a certain degree of autonomy and independence, in relation to their US-Pakistani sponsors. That appearance of "independence", however, is crucial; it is an integral part of the covert intelligence operation. According to former CIA agent Milton Beardman the Mujahideen were invariably unaware of the role they were performing on behalf of Washington. In the words of bin Laden (quoted by Beardman): "neither I, nor my brothers saw evidence of American help". (Weekend Sunday (NPR); Eric Weiner, Ted Clark; 16 August 1998).

"Motivated by nationalism and religious fervor, the Islamic warriors were unaware that they were fighting the Soviet Army on behalf of Uncle Sam. While there were contacts at the upper levels of the intelligence hierarchy, Islamic rebel leaders in theatre had no contacts with Washington or the CIA." (Michel Chossudovsky, America's War on Terrorism, Chapter 2).

The fabrication of "terrorism" --including covert support to terrorists-- is required to provide legitimacy to the "war on terrorism".

The various fundamentalist and paramilitary groups involved in US sponsored "terrorist" activities are "intelligence assets". In the wake of 9/11, their designated function as "intelligence assets" is to perform their role as credible "enemies of America".

Under the Bush administration, the CIA continued to support (via Pakistan's ISI) several Pakistani based Islamic groups. The ISI is known to support Jamaat a-Islami, which is also present in South East Asia, Lashkar-e-Tayya­ba, Jehad a-Kashmiri, Hizbul-Mujahidin and Jaish-e-Mohammed.

The Islamic groups created by the CIA are also intended to rally public support in Muslim countries. The underlying objective is to create divisions within national societies throughout the Middle East and Central Asia, while also triggering sectarian strife within Islam, ultimately with a view to curbing the development of a broad based secular mass resistance, which would challenge US imperial ambitions.

This function of an outside enemy is also an essential part of war propaganda required to galvanize Western public opinion. Without an enemy, a war cannot be fought. US foreign policy needs to fabricate an enemy, to justify its various military interventions in the Middle East and Central Asia. An enemy is required to justify a military agenda, which consists in " going after Al Qaeda". The fabrication and vilification of the enemy are required to justify military action.

The existence of an outside enemy sustains the illusion that the "war on terrorism" is real. It justifies and presents military intervention as a humanitarian operation based on the right to self-defense. It upholds the illusion of a "conflict of civilizations". The underlying purpose ultimately is to conceal the real economic and strategic objectives behind the broader Middle East Central Asian war.

Historically, Pakistan has played a central role in "war on terrorism". Pakistan constitutes from Washington's standpoint a geopolitical hub. It borders onto Afghanistan and Iran. It has played a crucial role in the conduct of US and allied military operations in Afghanistan as well as in the context of the Pentagon's war plans in relation to Iran.

* Michel Chossudovsky is an award-winning author, Professor of Economics (Emeritus) at the University of Ottawa and Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), Montreal. He is the author of The Globalization of Poverty and The New World Order (2003) and America's "War on Terrorism" (2005). He is also a contributor to the Encyclopaedia Britannica. His writings have been published in more than twenty languages.

By Paul J. Balles* | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

In general, pride is at the bottom of all great mistakes. - John Ruskin

The following headline appeared in a breaking news update from the Israeli news website Ynet and the French news agency AFP (23 August): "Ahmadinejad: Israel too weak to attack Iran."

When will Ahmadinejad learn to bite his tongue?

According to the news release, "Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad rejected the possibility that Israel or the United States would attack the Islamic Republic."

Is there a better way to provoke the hawks in Israel and America to join forces and attempt to prove Tehran's most aggravating Israel basher wrong?

Continuing, Ynet reported: "In an interview with Al-Jazeera, he (Ahmadinejad) said that Israel was too weak to handle an offensive in Iran and lacks the courage to carry out such a plan."

Why? When is President Ahmadinejad going to grow up and realize that throwing down a gauntlet like this simply aggravates the objects of his verbal tirades?

Is there a surer way to stimulate and encourage the US Congress to dedicate more US taxpayers' money to Israel's military?

Saying that Israel is "too weak to handle an offensive in Iran" does nothing more than pique US lawmakers to provide additional support for Israel's pre-emptive tendencies.

To further inflame Israel and annoy its US supporters by claiming that Israel "lacks the courage to carry out such a plan," is nothing less than a call to arms for both Israel and America.

Not satisfied with taunting Israel and America, Ahmadinejad couldn't resist provoking the Gulf states. Revealed the Ynet news report: "The Iranian president also added that the Gulf states will not allow the US to carry out an attack from bases in their territory and that the US has no interest in embarking on a military campaign."

Unless Ynet and AFP translated Ahmadinejad's remarks incorrectly, he comes across to any reasonable person as a provocateur. Realizing that Israelis are looking for an excuse to attack Iran, he could prove to be the best ally the Zionists have.

As such, he seems to want to stimulate the West's unthinking warmongers into catastrophic action and a devastating new war. Saddam Hussain used the same kind of bombast - what someone referred to as testicle talk.

Surely it's bad enough that Binyamin Netanyahu has been reported to be on the distaff side of sanity and probably needs little more than Ahmadinejad's insults to fire up his own madness.

It's not the first time that the Iranian president has created uproar with his provocative speech-making; and a soundly rational leader would have learned from his earlier experiences.

In June 2008, the Iranian Mehr news agency reported that "Ahmadinejad predicted that Muslims would uproot 'satanic powers' and repeated his controversial belief that Israel will soon disappear".

In his diatribe, according to AFP, he announced that "the Zionist regime (Israel), with a 60-year record of genocide, plunder, invasion and betrayal is about to die and will soon be erased from the geographical scene".

That and his previous tirades have been repeated and used effectively by the Zionist propaganda mill as enough of an "existential threat" to Israel to keep "military options" on the table.

None of the propaganda seems to have defrayed Ahmadinejad. While Iran hasn't been a military aggressor, public bluster like its president's has done nothing to keep it or the Middle East on a peaceful track.

While one may sympathize with the reasons for his verbal attacks, Ahmadinejad would do well for himself, the Gulf and the world if he bit his tongue occasionally and restrained his inordinate pride.

* Paul J. Balles is a retired American university professor and freelance writer who has lived in the Middle East for many years. For more information, see http://www.pballes.com.

By Andrew Gavin Marshall* | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

Introduction

As the 9th anniversary of 9/11 nears, and the war on terror continues to be waged and grows in ferocity and geography, it seems all the more imperative to return to the events of that fateful September morning and re-examine the reasons for war and the nature of the stated culprit, Al-Qaeda.

The events of 9/11 pervade the American and indeed the world imagination as an historical myth. The events of that day and those leading up to it remain largely unknown and little understood by the general public, apart from the disturbing images repeated ad nauseam in the media. The facts and troubled truths of that day are lost in the folklore of the 9/11 myth: that the largest attack carried out on American ground was orchestrated by 19 Muslims armed with box cutters and urged on by religious fundamentalism, all under the direction of Osama bin Laden, the leader of a global terrorist network called al-Qaeda, based out of a cave in Afghanistan.

The myth sweeps aside the facts and complex nature of terror, al-Qaeda, the American empire and literally defies the laws of physics. As John F. Kennedy once said, "The greatest enemy of the truth is not the lie - deliberate, contrived, and dishonest - but the myth - persistent, pervasive, and unrealistic."

This three-part series on "The Imperial Anatomy of Al-Qaeda" examines the geopolitical historical origins and nature of what we today know as al-Qaeda, which is in fact an Anglo-American intelligence network of terrorist assets used to advance American and NATO imperial objectives in various regions around the world.

Part 1 examines the origins of the intelligence network known as the Safari Club, which financed and organized an international conglomerate of terrorists, the CIA's role in the global drug trade, the emergence of the Taliban and the origins of al-Qaeda.

The Safari Club

Following Nixon's resignation as President, Gerald Ford became the new US President in 1974. Henry Kissinger remained as Secretary of State and Ford brought into his administration two names that would come to play important roles in the future of the American Empire: Donald Rumsfeld as Ford's Chief of Staff, and Dick Cheney, as Deputy Assistant to the President. The Vice President was Nelson Rockefeller, David Rockefeller's brother. When Donald Rumsfeld was promoted to Secretary of Defense, Dick Cheney was promoted to Chief of Staff. Ford had also appointed a man named George H.W. Bush as CIA Director.

In 1976, a coalition of intelligence agencies was formed, which was called the Safari Club. This marked the discreet and highly covert coordination among various intelligence agencies, which would last for decades. It formed at a time when the CIA was embroiled in domestic scrutiny over the Watergate scandal and a Congressional investigation into covert CIA activities, forcing the CIA to become more covert in its activities.

In 2002, the Saudi intelligence chief, Prince Turki bin Faisal gave a speech in which he stated that in response to the CIA's need for more discretion, "a group of countries got together in the hope of fighting Communism and established what was called the Safari Club. The Safari Club included France, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Morocco, and Iran [under the Shah]."[1] However, "The Safari Club needed a network of banks to finance its intelligence operations. With the official blessing of George H.W. Bush as the head of the CIA," Saudi intelligence chief, Kamal Adham, "transformed a small Pakistani merchant bank, the Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI), into a world-wide money-laundering machine, buying banks around the world to create the biggest clandestine money network in history."[2]

As CIA director, George H.W. Bush "cemented strong relations with the intelligence services of both Saudi Arabia and the Shah of Iran. He worked closely with Kamal Adham, the head of Saudi intelligence, brother-in-law of King Faisal and an early BCCI insider." Adham had previously acted as a "channel between [Henry] Kissinger and [Egyptian President] Anwar Sadat" in 1972. In 1976, Iran, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia formed the Safari Club "to conduct through their own intelligence agencies operations that were now difficult for the CIA," which was largely organized by the head of French intelligence, Alexandre de Marenches.[3]

The "Arc of Crisis" and the Iranian Revolution

When Jimmy Carter became President in 1977, he appointed over two-dozen members of the Trilateral Commission to his administration, which was an international think tank formed by Zbigniew Brzezinski and David Rockefeller in 1973. Brzezinski had invited Carter to join the Trilateral Commission, and when Carter became President, Brzezinski became National Security Adviser; Cyrus Vance, also a member of the Commission, became Secretary of State; and Samuel Huntington, another Commission member, became Coordinator of National Security and Deputy to Brzezinski. Author and researcher Peter Dale Scott deserves much credit for his comprehensive analysis of the events leading up to and during the Iranian Revolution in his book, "The Road to 9/11",** which provides much of the information below.

Samuel Huntington and Zbigniew Brzezinski were to determine the US policy position in the Cold War, and the US-Soviet policy they created was termed, "Cooperation and Competition," in which Brzezinski would press for "Cooperation" when talking to the press, yet, privately push for "competition." So, while Secretary of State Cyrus Vance was pursuing détente with the Soviet Union, Brzezinski was pushing for American supremacy over the Soviet Union. Brzezinski and Vance would come to disagree on almost every issue.[4]

In 1978, Zbigniew Brzezinski gave a speech in which he stated, "An arc of crisis stretches along the shores of the Indian Ocean, with fragile social and political structures in a region of vital importance to us threatened with fragmentation. The resulting political chaos could well be filled by elements hostile to our values and sympathetic to our adversaries." The Arc of Crisis stretched from Indochina to southern Africa, although, more specifically, the particular area of focus was "the nations that stretch across the southern flank of the Soviet Union from the Indian subcontinent to Turkey, and southward through the Arabian Peninsula to the Horn of Africa." Further, the "center of gravity of this arc is Iran, the world's fourth largest oil producer and for more than two decades a citadel of U.S. military and economic strength in the Middle East. Now it appears that the 37-year reign of Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi is almost over, ended by months of rising civil unrest and revolution."[5]

With rising discontent in the region, "There was this idea that the Islamic forces could be used against the Soviet Union. The theory was, there was an arc of crisis, and so an arc of Islam could be mobilized to contain the Soviets. It was a Brzezinski concept."[6] A month prior to Brzezinski's speech, in November of 1978, "President Carter named the Bilderberg group's George Ball, another member of the Trilateral Commission, to head a special White House Iran task force under the National Security Council's Brzezinski." Further, "Ball recommended that Washington drop support for the Shah of Iran and support the fundamentalist Islamic opposition of Ayatollah Khomeini."[7] George Ball's visit to Iran was a secret mission.[8]

Throughout 1978, the Shah was under the impression that "the Carter administration was plotting to topple his regime." In 1978, the Queen and Shah's wife, told Manouchehr Ganji, a minister in the Shah's government, that, "I wanted to tell you that the Americans are maneuvering to bring down the Shah," and she continued saying that she believed "they even want to topple the regime."[9] The US Ambassador to Iran, William Sullivan, thought that the revolution would succeed, and told this to Ramsey Clark, former US Attorney General under the Johnson administration, as well as professor Richard Falk, when they were visiting Sullivan in Iran in 1978. Clark and Falk then went from Iran to Paris, to visit Khomeini, who was there in exile. James Bill, a Carter adviser, felt that, "a religious movement brought about with the United States' assistance would be a natural friend of the United States."[10]

Also interesting is the fact that the British BBC broadcast pro-Khomeini Persian-language programs daily in Iran, as a subtle form of propaganda, which "gave credibility to the perception of United States and British support of Khomeini."[11] The BBC refused to give the Shah a platform to respond, and "[r]epeated personal appeals from the Shah to the BBC yielded no result."[12]

In the May 1979 meeting of the Bilderberg Group, Bernard Lewis, a British historian of great influence (hence, the Bilderberg membership), presented a British-American strategy which, "endorsed the radical Muslim Brotherhood movement behind Khomeini, in order to promote balkanization of the entire Muslim Near East along tribal and religious lines. Lewis argued that the West should encourage autonomous groups such as the Kurds, Armenians, Lebanese Maronites, Ethiopian Copts, Azerbaijani Turks, and so forth. The chaos would spread in what he termed an 'Arc of Crisis,' which would spill over into the Muslim regions of the Soviet Union."[13] Further, it would prevent Soviet influence from entering the Middle East, as the Soviet Union was viewed as an empire of atheism and godlessness: essentially a secular and immoral empire, which would seek to impose secularism across Muslim countries. So supporting radical Islamic groups would mean that the Soviet Union would be less likely to have any influence or relations with Middle Eastern countries, making the US a more acceptable candidate for developing relations.

A 1979 article in Foreign Affairs, the journal of the Council on Foreign Relations, described the Arc of Crisis, saying that, "The Middle East constitutes its central core. Its strategic position is unequalled: it is the last major region of the Free World directly adjacent to the Soviet Union, it holds in its subsoil about three-fourths of the proven and estimated world oil reserves, and it is the locus of one of the most intractable conflicts of the twentieth century: that of Zionism versus Arab nationalism." It went on to explain that post-war US policy in the region was focused on "containment" of the Soviet Union, as well as access to the regions oil.[14] The article continued, explaining that the most "obvious division" within the Middle East is, "that which separates the Northern Tier (Turkey, Iran, Afghanistan) from the Arab core," and that, "After World War II, Turkey and Iran were the two countries most immediately threatened by Soviet territorial expansionism and political subversion."[15] Ultimately, "the Northern Tier was assured of a serious and sustained American commitment to save it from sharing the fate of Eastern Europe."[16]

While Khomeini was in Paris prior to the Revolution, a representative of the French President organized a meeting between Khomeini and "current world powers," in which Khomeini made certain demands, such as, "the shah's removal from Iran and help in avoiding a coup d'état by the Iranian Army." The Western powers, however, "were worried about the Soviet Union's empowerment and penetration and a disruption in Iran's oil supply to the west. Khomeini gave the necessary guarantees. These meetings and contacts were taking place in January of 1979, just a few days before the Islamic Revolution in February 1979."[17] In February of 1979, Khomeini was flown out of Paris on an Air France flight, to return to Iran, "with the blessing of Jimmy Carter."[18] Ayatollah Khomeini named Mehdi Bazargan as prime minister of the Provisional Revolutionary Government on February 4, 1979. As Khomeini had demanded during his Paris meeting in January 1979, that western powers must help in avoiding a coup by the Iranian Army; in that same month, the Carter administration, under the direction of Brzezinski, had begun planning a military coup.[19]

Could this have been planned in the event that Khomeini was overthrown, the US would quickly reinstate order, perhaps even place Khomeini back in power? Interestingly, in January of 1979, "as the Shah was about to leave the country, the American Deputy Commander in NATO, General Huyser, arrived and over a period of a month conferred constantly with Iranian military leaders. His influence may have been substantial on the military's decision not to attempt a coup and eventually to yield to the Khomeini forces, especially if press reports are accurate that he or others threatened to withhold military supplies if a coup were attempted."[20] No coup was subsequently undertaken, and Khomeini came to power as the Ayatollah of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

As tensions increased among the population within Iran, the US sent "security advisers" to Iran to pressure the Shah's SAVAK (secret police) to implement "a policy of ever more brutal repression, in a manner calculated to maximize popular antipathy to the Shah." The Carter administration also began publicly criticizing the Shah's human rights abuses.[21] On September 6, 1978, the Shah banned demonstrations, and the following day, between 700 and 2000 demonstrators were gunned down, following "advice from Brzezinski to be firm."[22]

The US Ambassador to the UN, Andrew Young, a Trilateral Commission member, said that, "Khomeini will eventually be hailed as a saint," and the US Ambassador to Iran, William Sullivan, said, "Khomeini is a Gandhi-like figure," while Carter's adviser, James Bill, said that Khomeini was a man of "impeccable integrity and honesty."[23]

The Shah was also very sick in late 1978 and early 1979. So the Shah fled Iran in January of 1979 to the Bahamas, allowing for the revolution to take place. It is especially interesting to understand the relationship between David Rockefeller and the Shah of Iran. David Rockefeller's personal assistant, Joseph V. Reed, had been "assigned to handle the shah's finances and his personal needs;" Robert Armao, who worked for Vice President Nelson Rockefeller, was sent to "act as the shah's public relations agent and lobbyist;" and Benjamin H. Kean, "a longtime associate of Chase Manhattan Bank chairman David Rockefeller," and David Rockefeller's "personal physician," who was sent to Mexico when the shah was there, and advised that he "be treated at an American hospital."[24]

It is important to note that Rockefeller interests "had directed U.S. policy in Iran since the CIA coup of 1953."[25] Following the Shah's flight from Iran, there were increased pressures within the United States by a handful of powerful people to have the Shah admitted to the United States. These individuals were Zbigniew Brzezinski, former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, John J. McCloy, former statesman and senior member of the Bilderberg Group, Trilateral Commission and the Council on Foreign Relations, who was also a lawyer for Chase Manhattan, and of course, David Rockefeller.[26]

Chase Manhattan Bank had more interests in Iran than any other US bank. In fact, the Shah had "ordered that all his government's major operating accounts be held at Chase and that letters of credit for the purchase of oil be handled exclusively through Chase. The bank also became the agent and lead manager for many of the loans to Iran. In short, Iran became the crown jewel of Chase's international banking portfolio."[27]

The Iranian interim government, headed by Prime Minister Bazargan, collapsed in November of 1979, when Iranian hostages seized the US Embassy in Teheran. However, there is much more to this event than meets the eye. During the time of the interim government (February, 1979 to November, 1979), several actions were undertaken which threatened some very powerful interests who had helped the Ayatollah into power.

Chase Manhattan Bank faced a liquidity crisis as there had been billions in questionable loans to Iran funneled through Chase.[28] Several of Chase's loans were "possibly illegal under the Iranian constitution."[29] Further, in February of 1979, once the interim government was put in power, it began to take "steps to market its oil independently of the Western oil majors." Also, the interim government "wanted Chase Manhattan to return Iranian assets, which Rockefeller put at more than $1 billion in 1978, although some estimates ran much higher," which could have "created a liquidity crisis for the bank which already was coping with financial troubles."[30]

With the seizure of the American Embassy in Iran, President Carter took moves to freeze Iranian financial assets. As David Rockefeller wrote in his book, "Carter's 'freeze' of official Iranian assets protected our [Chase Manhattan's] position, but no one at Chase played a role in convincing the administration to institute it."[31]

In February of 1979, Iran had been taking "steps to market its oil independently of the Western oil majors. In 1979, as in 1953, a freeze of Iranian assets made this action more difficult."[32] This was significant for Chase Manhattan not simply because of the close interlocking of the board with those of oil companies, not to mention Rockefeller himself, who is patriarch of the family whose name is synonymous with oil, but also because Chase exclusively handled all the letters of credit for the purchase of Iranian oil.[33]

The Shah being accepted into the United States, under public pressure from Henry Kissinger, Zbigniew Brzezinski and David Rockefeller, precipitated the hostage crisis, which occurred on November 4. Ten days later, Carter froze all Iranian assets in US banks, on the advice of his Treasury Secretary, William Miller. Miller just happened to have ties to Chase Manhattan Bank.[34]

Although Chase Manhattan directly benefited from the seizure of Iranian assets, the reasoning behind the seizure as well as the events leading up to it, such as a hidden role for the Anglo-Americans behind the Iranian Revolution, bringing the Shah to America, which precipitated the hostage crisis, cannot simply be relegated to personal benefit for Chase. There were larger designs behind this crisis. So the 1979 crises in Iran cannot simply be pawned off as a spur of the moment undertaking, but rather should be seen as quick actions taken upon a perceived opportunity. The opportunity was the rising discontent within Iran at the Shah; the quick actions were in covertly pushing the country into Revolution.

In 1979, "effectively restricting the access of Iran to the global oil market, the Iranian assets freeze became a major factor in the huge oil price increases of 1979 and 1981."[35] Added to this, in 1979, British Petroleum cancelled major oil contracts for oil supply, which along with cancellations taken by Royal Dutch Shell, drove the price of oil up higher.[36] With the first major oil price rises in 1973 (urged on by US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger), the Third World was forced to borrow heavily from US and European banks to finance development. With the second oil price shocks of 1979, the US Federal Reserve, with Paul Volcker as its new Chairman, (himself having served a career under David Rockefeller at Chase Manhattan), dramatically raised interest rates from 2% in the late 70s to 18% in the early 80s. Developing nations could not afford to pay such interest on their loans, and thus the 1980s debt crisis spread throughout the Third World, with the IMF and World Bank coming to the "rescue" with their Structural Adjustment Programs (SAPs), which ensured western control over the developing world's economies.[37]

Covertly, the United States helped a radical Islamist government come to power in Iran, "the center of the Arc of Crisis," and then immediately stirred up conflict and war in the region. Five months before Iraq invaded Iran, in April of 1980, Zbigniew Brzezinski openly declared the willingness of the US to work closely with Iraq. Two months before the war, Brzezinski met with Saddam Hussein in Jordan, where he gave support for the destabilization of Iran.[38] While Saddam was in Jordan, he also met with three senior CIA agents, which was arranged by King Hussein of Jordan. He then went to meet with King Fahd in Saudi Arabia, informing him of his plans to invade Iran, and then met with the Emir of Kuwait to inform him of the same thing. He gained support from America, and financial and arms support from the Arab oil producing countries. Arms to Iraq were funneled through Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.[39] The war lasted until 1988 and resulted in over a million deaths.

This was the emergence of the "strategy of tension" in the "Arc of Crisis," in particular, the covert support (whether in arming, training, or financing) of radical Islamic elements to foment violence and conflict in a region. It was the old imperial tactic of 'divide and conquer': pit the people against each other so that they cannot join forces against the imperial power. This violence and radical Islamism would further provide the pretext for which the US and its imperial allies could then engage in war and occupation within the region, all the while securing its vast economic and strategic interests.

The "Arc of Crisis" in Afghanistan: The Safari Club in Action

In 1978, the progressive Taraki government in Afghanistan managed to incur the anger of the United States due to "its egalitarian and collectivist economic policies."[40] The Afghan government was widely portrayed in the West as "Communist" and thus, a threat to US national security. The government, did, however, undertake friendly policies and engagement with the Soviet Union, but was not a Communist government.

In 1978, as the new government came to power, almost immediately the US began covertly funding rebel groups through the CIA.[41] In 1979, Zbigniew Brzezinski worked closely with his aid from the CIA, Robert Gates (who is currently Secretary of Defense), in shifting President Carter's Islamic policy. As Brzezinski said in a 1998 interview with a French publication:

According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise: Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.[42]

Brzezinski elaborated, saying he "Knowingly increased the probability that [the Soviets] would invade," and he recalled writing to Carter on the day of the Soviet invasion that, "We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire." When asked about the repercussions for such support in fostering the rise of Islamic fundamentalism, Brzezinski responded, "What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?"[43]

As author Peter Dale Scott pointed out in, The Road to 9/11:**

For generations in both Afghanistan and the Soviet Muslim Republics the dominant form of Islam had been local and largely Sufi. The decision to work with the Saudi and Pakistani secret services meant that billions of CIA and Saudi dollars would ultimately be spent in programs that would help enhance the globalistic and Wahhabistic jihadism that are associated today with al Qaeda.[44]

Hafizullah Amin, a top official in Taraki's government, who many believed to be a CIA asset, orchestrated a coup in September of 1979, and "executed Taraki, halted the reforms, and murdered, jailed, or exiled thousands of Taraki supporters as he moved toward establishing a fundamentalist Islamic state. But within two months, he was overthrown by PDP remnants including elements within the military."[45] The Soviets also intervened in order to replace Amin, who was seen as "unpredictable and extremist" with "the more moderate Barbak Karmal."[46]

The Soviet invasion thus prompted the US national security establishment to undertake the largest covert operation in history. When Ronald Reagan replaced Jimmy Carter in 1981, the covert assistance to the Afghan Mujahideen not only continued on the path set by Brzezinski but it rapidly accelerated, as did the overall strategy in the "Arc of Crisis." When Reagan became President, his Vice President became George H.W. Bush, who, as CIA director during the Ford administration, had helped establish the Safari Club intelligence network and the Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI) in Pakistan. In the "campaign to aid the Afghan rebels ... BCCI clearly emerged as a U.S. intelligence asset," and CIA Director "Casey began to use the outside - the Saudis, the Pakistanis, BCCI - to run what they couldn't get through Congress. [BCCI president] Abedi had the money to help," and the CIA director had "met repeatedly" with the president of BCCI.[47]

Thus, in 1981, Director Casey of the CIA worked with Saudi Prince Turki bin Faisal who ran the Saudi intelligence agency GID, and the Pakistani ISI "to create a foreign legion of jihadi Muslims or so-called Arab Afghans." This idea had "originated in the elite Safari Club that had been created by French intelligence chief Alexandre de Marenches."[48]

In 1986, the CIA backed a plan by the Pakistani ISI "to recruit people from around the world to join the Afghan jihad." Subsequently:

More than 100,000 Islamic militants were trained in Pakistan between 1986 and 1992, in camps overseen by CIA and MI6, with the SAS [British Special Forces] training future al-Qaida and Taliban fighters in bomb-making and other black arts. Their leaders were trained at a CIA camp in Virginia. This was called Operation Cyclone and continued long after the Soviets had withdrawn in 1989.[49]

CIA funding for the operations "was funneled through General Zia and the ISI in Pakistan."[50]

Interestingly, Robert Gates, who previously served as assistant to Brzezinski in the National Security Council, stayed on in the Reagan-Bush administration as executive assistant to CIA director Casey, and who is currently Secretary of Defense.

The Global Drug Trade and the CIA

As a central facet of the covert financing and training of the Afghan Mujahideen, the role of the drug trade became invaluable. The global drug trade has long been used by empires for fueling and financing conflict with the aim of facilitating imperial domination.

In 1773, the British colonial governor in Bengal "established a colonial monopoly on the sale of opium." As Alfred W. McCoy explained in his masterful book, "The Politics of Heroin":

As the East India Company expanded production, opium became India's main export. [. . . ] Over the next 130 years, Britain actively promoted the export of Indian opium to China, defying Chinese drug laws and fighting two wars to open China's opium market for its merchants. Using its military and mercantile power, Britain played a central role in making China a vast drug market and in accelerating opium cultivation throughout China. By 1900 China had 13.5 million addicts consuming 39,000 tons of opium.[51]

In Indochina in the 1940s and 50s, the French intelligence services "enabled the opium trade to survive government suppression efforts," and subsequently, "CIA activities in Burma helped transform the Shan states from a relatively minor poppy-cultivating area into the largest opium-growing region in the world."[52] The CIA did this by supporting the Kuomintang (KMT) army in Burma for an invasion of China, and facilitated its monopolization and expansion of the opium trade, allowing the KMT to remain in Burma until a coup in 1961, when they were driven into Laos and Thailand.[53] The CIA subsequently played a very large role in the facilitation of the drugs trade in Laos and Vietnam throughout the 1960s and into the 1970s.[54]

It was during the 1980s that "the CIA's covert war in Afghanistan transformed Central Asia from a self-contained opium zone into a major supplier of heroin for the world market," as:

Until the late 1970s, tribal farmers in the highlands of Afghanistan and Pakistan grew limited quantities of opium and sold it to merchant caravans bound west for Iran and east to India. In its decade of covert warfare against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, the CIA's operations provided the political protection and logistics linkages that joined Afghanistan's poppy fields to heroin markets in Europe and America.[55]

In 1977, General Zia Ul Haq in Pakistan launched a military coup, "imposed a harsh martial-law regime," and executed former President Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto (father to Benazir Bhutto). When Zia came to power, the Pakistani ISI was a "minor military intelligence unit," but, under the "advice and assistance of the CIA," General Zia transformed the ISI "into a powerful covert unit and made it the strong arm of his martial-law regime."[56]

The CIA and Saudi money flowed not only to weapons and training for the Mujahideen, but also into the drug trade. Pakistani President Zia-ul-Haq appointed General Fazle Haq as the military governor of Pakistan's North-West Frontier Province (NWFP), who would "consult with Brzezinski on developing an Afghan resistance program," and who became a CIA asset. When CIA Director Casey or Vice President George H.W. Bush reviewed the CIA Afghan operation, they went to see Haq; who by 1982, was considered by Interpol to be an international narcotics trafficker. Haq moved much of the narcotics money through the BCCI.[57]

In May of 1979, prior to the December invasion of the Soviet Union into Afghanistan, a CIA envoy met with Afghan resistance leaders in a meeting organized by the ISI. The ISI "offered the CIA envoy an alliance with its own Afghan client, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar," who led a small guerilla group. The CIA accepted, and over the following decade, half of the CIA's aid went to Hekmatyar's guerillas.[58] Hekmatyar became Afghanistan's leading mujahideen drug lord, and developed a "complex of six heroin labs in an ISI-controlled area of Baluchistan (Pakistan)."[59]

The US subsequently, through the 1980s, in conjunction with Saudi Arabia, gave Hekmatyar more than $1 billion in armaments. Immediately, heroin began flowing from Afghanistan to America. By 1980, drug-related deaths in New York City rose 77% since 1979.[60] By 1981, the drug lords in Pakistan and Afghanistan supplied 60% of America's heroin. Trucks going into Afghanistan with CIA arms from Pakistan would return with heroin "protected by ISI papers from police search."[61]

Haq, the CIA asset in Pakistan, "was also running the drug trade," of which the bank BCCI "was completely involved." In the 1980s, the CIA insisted that the ISI create "a special cell for the use of heroin for covert actions." Elaborating:

This cell promoted the cultivation of opium and the extraction of heroin in Pakistani territory as well as in the Afghan territory under Mujahideen control for being smuggled into Soviet controlled areas in order to make the Soviet troops heroin addicts.[62]

This plan apparently originated at the suggestion of French intelligence chief and founder of the Safari Club, Alexandre de Marenches, who recommended it to CIA Director Casey.[63]

In the 1980s, one program undertaken by the United States was to finance Mujahideen propaganda in textbooks for Afghan schools. The US gave the Mujahideen $43 million in "non-lethal" aid for the textbook project alone, which was given by USAID: "The U.S. Agency for International Development, [USAID] coordinated its work with the CIA, which ran the weapons program," and "The U.S. government told the AID to let the Afghan war chiefs decide the school curriculum and the content of the textbooks."[64]

The textbooks were "filled with violent images and militant Islamic teachings," and "were filled with talk of jihad and featured drawings of guns, bullets, soldiers and mines." Even since the covert war of the 1980s, the textbooks "have served since then as the Afghan school system's core curriculum. Even the Taliban used the American-produced books." The books were developed through a USAID grant to the "University of Nebraska-Omaha and its Center for Afghanistan Studies," and when the books were smuggled into Afghanistan through regional military leaders, "Children were taught to count with illustrations showing tanks, missiles and land mines." USAID stopped this funding in 1994.[65]

The Rise of the Taliban

When the Soviets withdrew from Afghanistan in 1989, the fighting continued between the Afghan government backed by the USSR and the Mujahideen backed by the US, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan. When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, so too did its aid to the Afghan government, which itself was overthrown in 1992. However, fighting almost immediately broke out between rival factions vying for power, including Hekmatyar.

In the early 1990s, an obscure group of "Pashtun country folk" had become a powerful military and political force in Afghanistan, known as the Taliban.[66] The Taliban "surfaced as a small militia force operating near Kandahar city during the spring and summer of 1994, carrying out vigilante attacks against minor warlords." As growing discontent with the warlords grew, so too did the reputation of the Taliban.[67]

The Taliban acquired an alliance with the ISI in 1994, and throughout 1995, the relationship between the Taliban and the ISI accelerated and "became more and more of a direct military alliance." The Taliban ultimately became "an asset of the ISI" and "a client of the Pakistan army."[68] Further, "Between 1994 and 1996, the USA supported the Taliban politically through its allies Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, essentially because Washington viewed the Taliban as anti-Iranian, anti-Shia, and pro-Western."[69]

Selig Harrison, a scholar with the Woodrow Wilson International Centre for Scholars and "a leading US expert on South Asia," said at a conference in India that the CIA worked with Pakistan to create the Taliban. Harrison has "extensive contact" with the CIA, as "he had meetings with CIA leaders at the time when Islamic forces were being strengthened in Afghanistan," while he was a senior associate of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. As he further revealed in 2001, "The CIA still has close links with the ISI."[70] By 1996, the Taliban had control of Kandahar, but still fighting and instability continued in the country.

Osama and Al-Qaeda

Between 1980 and 1989, roughly $600 million was passed through Osama bin Laden's charity front organizations, specifically the Maktab al-Khidamat (MAK), also known as Al-Kifah. The money mostly originated with wealthy donors in Saudi Arabia and other areas in the Persian Gulf, and was funneled through his charity fronts to arm and fund the mujahideen in Afghanistan.[71]

In the 1980s, the British Special Forces (SAS) were training mujahideen in Afghanistan, as well as in secret camps in Scotland, and the SAS is largely taking orders from the CIA. The CIA also indirectly begins to arm Osama bin Laden.[72] Osama bin Laden's front charity, the MAK, "was nurtured" by the Pakistani ISI.[73]

Osama bin Laden was reported to have been personally recruited by the CIA in 1979 in Istanbul. He had the close support of Prince Turki bin Faisal, his friend and head of Saudi intelligence, and also developed ties with Hekmatyar in Afghanistan,[74] both of whom were pivotal figures in the CIA-Safari Club network. General Akhtar Abdul Rahman, the head of the Pakistani ISI from 1980 to 1987, would meet regularly with Osama bin Laden in Pakistan, and they formed a partnership in demanding a tax on the opium trade from warlords so that by 1985, bin Laden and the ISI were splitting the profits of over $100 million per year.[75] In 1985, Osama bin Laden's brother, Salem, stated that Osama was "the liaison between the US, the Saudi government, and the Afghan rebels."[76]

In 1988, Bin Laden discussed "the establishment of a new military group," which would come to be known as Al-Qaeda.[77] Osama bin Laden's charity front, the MAK, (eventually to form Al-Qaeda) founded the al-Kifah Center in Brooklyn, New York, to recruit Muslims for the jihad against the Soviets. The al-Kifah Center was founded in the late 1980s with the support of the U.S. government, which provided visas for known terrorists associated with the organization, including Ali Mohamed, the "blind sheik" Omar Abdel Rahman and possibly the lead 9/11 hijacker, Mohamed Atta.[78]

This coincided with the creation of Al-Qaeda, of which the al-Kifah Center was a recruiting front. Foot soldiers for Al-Qaeda were "admitted to the United States for training under a special visa program." The FBI had been surveilling the training of terrorists, however, "it terminated this surveillance in the fall of 1989." In 1990, the CIA granted Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman a visa to come run the al-Kifah Center, who was considered an "untouchable" as he was "being protected by no fewer than three agencies," including the State Department, the National Security Agency (NSA) and the CIA.[79]

Robin Cook, a former British MP and Minister of Foreign Affairs wrote that Al-Qaeda, "literally 'the database', was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians."[80] Thus, "Al-Qaeda" was born as an instrument of western intelligence agencies. This account of al-Qaeda was further corroborated by a former French military intelligence agent, who stated that, "In the mid-1980s, Al Qaeda was a database," and that it remained as such into the 1990s. He contended that, "Al Qaeda was neither a terrorist group nor Osama bin Laden's personal property," and further:

The truth is, there is no Islamic army or terrorist group called Al Qaida. And any informed intelligence officer knows this. But there is a propaganda campaign to make the public believe in the presence of an identified entity representing the 'devil' only in order to drive the 'TV watcher' to accept a unified international leadership for a war against terrorism. The country behind this propaganda is the US and the lobbyists for the US war on terrorism are only interested in making money.[81]

The creation of Al-Qaeda was thus facilitated by the CIA and allied intelligence networks, the purpose of which was to maintain this "database" of Mujahideen to be used as intelligence assets to achieve US foreign policy objectives, throughout both the Cold War, and into the post-Cold War era of the 'new world order'.

Part II of "The Imperial Anatomy of al-Qaeda" takes the reader through an examination of the new imperial strategy laid out by American geopolitical strategists at the end of the Cold War, designed for America to maintain control over the world's resources and prevent the rise of competitive powers. Covertly, the "database" (al-Qaeda) became central to this process, being used to advance imperial aims in various regions, such as in the dismantling of Yugoslavia. Part 2 further examines the exact nature of 'al-Qaeda', its origins, terms, training, arming, financing, and expansion. In particular, the roles of western intelligence agencies in the evolution and expansion of al-Qaeda is a central focus. Finally, an analysis of the preparations for the war in Afghanistan is undertaken to shed light on the geopolitical ambitions behind the conflict that has now been waging for nearly nine years.

Part III of "The Imperial Anatomy of al-Qaeda" takes the reader through 9/11 and America's Secret Terror Campaign.

* Andrew Gavin Marshall is a Research Associate with the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG). He is co-editor, with Michel Chossudovsky, of the recent book, "The Global Economic Crisis: The Great Depression of the XXI Century," available to order at Globalresearch.ca.

** [Note on the research: For a comprehensive analysis of the history, origins and nature of al-Qaeda, see: Peter Dale Scott, The Road to 9/11: Wealth, Empire and the Future of America, which provided much of the research in the above article.]

Notes

[1] Peter Dale Scott, The Road to 9/11: Wealth, Empire, and the Future of America. University of California Press: 2007: page 62

[2] Ibid, page 63.

[3] Ibid, page 62.

[4] Ibid, pages 66-67.

[5] HP-Time, The Crescent of Crisis. Time Magazine: January 15, 1979:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,919995-1,00.html

[6] Peter Dale Scott, op. cit., page 67.

[7] F. William Engdahl, A Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order. London: Pluto Press, 2004: page 171

[8] Manouchehr Ganji, Defying the Iranian Revolution: From a Minister to the Shah to a Leader of Resistance. Greenwood Publishing Group, 2002: page 41

[9] Ibid, page 39.

[10] Ibid, page 41.

[11] Ibid.

[12] F. William Engdahl, A Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order. London: Pluto Press, 2004: page 172

[13] Ibid, page 171.

[14] George Lenczowski, The Arc of Crisis: It's Central Sector. Foreign Affairs: Summer, 1979: page 796

[15] Ibid, page 797.

[16] Ibid, page 798.

[17] IPS, Q&A: Iran's Islamic Revolution Had Western Blessing. Inter-Press Service: July 26, 2008:
http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=43328

[18] Michael D. Evans, Father of the Iranian revolution. The Jerusalem Post: June 20, 2007:
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1181813077590&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull

[19] Peter Dale Scott, op cit., page 89.

[20] George Lenczowski, The Arc of Crisis: It's Central Sector. Foreign Affairs: Summer, 1979: page 810

[21] F. William Engdahl, op cit., page 172.

[22] Peter Dale Scott, op cit., page 81.

[23] Michael D. Evans, Father of the Iranian revolution. The Jerusalem Post: June 20, 2007:
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1181813077590&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull

[24] Peter Dale Scott, op cit., page 83.

[25] Ibid, page 84.

[26] Ibid, page 81.

[27] Ibid, pages 85-86.

[28] Ibid.

[29] Ibid, page 87.

[30] Ibid, pages 88-89.

[31] Ibid.

[32] Ibid, pages 87-88.

[33] Ibid, page 85.

[34] Ibid, page 86.

[35] Ibid, page 88.

[36] F. William Engdahl, A Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order. London: Pluto Press, 2004: page 173

[37] Andrew Gavin Marshall, Controlling the Global Economy: Bilderberg, the Trilateral Commission and the Federal Reserve. Global Research: August 3, 2009:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=14614

[38] Peter Dale Scott, The Road to 9/11: Wealth, Empire, and the Future of America. University of California Press: 2007: page 89

[39] PBS, Secrets of His Life and Leadership: An Interview with Said K. Aburish. PBS Frontline:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/saddam/interviews/aburish.html

[40] Michael Parenti, Afghanistan, Another Untold Story. Global Research: December 4, 2008:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=11279

[41] Oleg Kalugin, How We Invaded Afghanistan. Foreign Policy: December 11, 2009:
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/12/11/how_we_invaded_afghanistan

[42] ''Le Nouvel Observateur' (France), Jan 15-21, 1998, p. 76:
http://www.ucc.ie/acad/appsoc/tmp_store/mia/Library/history/afghanistan/archive/brzezinski/1998/interview.htm

[43] Ibid.

[44] Peter Dale Scott, The Road to 9/11: Wealth, Empire, and the Future of America. University of California Press: 2007: page 73

[45] Michael Parenti, Afghanistan, Another Untold Story. Global Research: December 4, 2008:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=11279

[46] Peter Dale Scott, op cit., page 78.

[47] Ibid, page 116.

[48] Ibid, page 122.

[49] Ibid, page 123.

[50] Ibid,.

[51] Alfred W. McCoy, The Politics of Heroin: CIA Complicity in the Global Drug Trade. (Lawrence Hill Books: Chicago, 2003), page 80

[52] Ibid, page 162.

[53] Ibid.

[54] Ibid, pages 283-386.

[55] Ibid, page 466.

[56] Ibid, page 474.

[57] Peter Dale Scott, The Road to 9/11: Wealth, Empire, and the Future of America. University of California Press: 2007: page 73

[58] Alfred W. McCoy, op cit., page 475.

[59] Peter Dale Scott, op cit., page 74.

[60] Ibid, pages 75-76.

[61] Ibid, page 124.

[62] Ibid, pages 75-76.

[63] Ibid, page 124.

[64] Carol Off, Back to school in Afghanistan. CBC: May 6, 2002:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/afghanistan/schools.html

[65] Joe Stephens and David B. Ottaway, From U.S., the ABC's of Jihad. The Washington Post: March 23, 2002:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A5339-2002Mar22?language=printer

[66] Steve Coll, Ghost Wars: The Secret History of the CIA, Afghanistan, and Bin Laden, From the Soviet Invasion to September 10, 2001. Penguin Books, New York, 2004: Page 328

[67] Steve Coll, Ghost Wars: The Secret History of the CIA, Afghanistan, and Bin Laden, From the Soviet Invasion to September 11, 2001. (London: Penguin, 2005), page 285

[68] Steve Coll, "Steve Coll" Interview with PBS Frontline. PBS Frontline: October 3, 2006:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/taliban/interviews/coll.html

[69] Robert Dreyfuss, Devil's Game: How the United States Helped Unleash Fundamentalist Islam. (New York: Metropolitan Books, 2005), page 326

[70] ToI, "CIA worked in tandem with Pak to create Taliban". The Times of India: March 7, 2001:
http://www.multiline.com.au/~johnm/taliban.htm

[71] Robert Dreyfuss, Devil's Game: How the United States Helped Unleash Fundamentalist Islam. (New York: Metropolitan Books, 2005), pages 279-280

[72] Simon Reeve, The New Jackals: Ramzi Yousef, Osama bin Laden, and the Future of Terrorism. (London: André Deutsch Ltd, 1999), page 168

[73] Michael Moran, Bin Laden comes home to roost. MSNBC: August 24, 1998:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3340101/

[74] Veronique Maurus and Marc Rock, The Most Dreaded Man of the United States, Controlled a Long Time by the CIA. Le Monde Diplomatique: September 14, 2001: http://www.wanttoknow.info/010914lemonde

[75] Gerald Posner, Why America Slept: The Failure to Prevent 9/11. (New York: Random House, 2003), page 29

[76] Steve Coll, The Bin Ladens. (New York: Penguin, 2008), pages 7-9

[77] AP, Al Qaeda Financing Documents Turn Up in Bosnia Raid. Fox News: February 19, 2003:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,78937,00.html

[78] Peter Dale Scott, The Road to 9/11: Wealth, Empire, and the Future of America. University of California Press: 2007: pages 140-141

[79] Ibid, page 141.

[80] Robin Cook, The struggle against terrorism cannot be won by military means. The Guardian: July 8, 2005:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2005/jul/08/july7.development

[81] Pierre-Henri Bunel, Al Qaeda - the Database. Global Research: November 20, 2005:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=BUN20051120&articleId=1291