|
Notify me of new HIR pieces!
|
|||||||||||||||
|
Understanding Annapolis An HIR Series Historical and Investigative Research
- 13 December 2007
Table of Contents
__________________________________________________________
At Annapolis the Israeli government and the
‘Palestinian Authority’ (PLO/Fatah plus Hamas) announced that they would
negotiate a two-state solution by the end of 2008. To this end, announces one
headline, “ISRAEL FREES PRISONERS TO BOOST ABBAS.” The freed prisoners, the
article explains, are almost all members of Al Fatah.[1] Al Fatah is Mahmoud Abbas’s
(Abu Mazen’s) organization, and it was created by the former Mufti of
Jerusalem, Hajj Amin al
Husseini, a man who during World War II made
his home in Nazi-occupied Europe and became a top leader of Adolf Hitler’s
Final Solution. In the 1950s Husseini oversaw, directly, the training of
Yasser Arafat and Mahmoud Abbas by escaped German Nazis who were in Egypt to
train Gamal Abdel Nasser's forces.[2] That’s who the Israeli government means to “boost.” But that’s not all. At the same time that the
Israeli government strengthens the Nazis, it means to weaken the Jews. Israel
National News reports that “the IDF is conducting a large scale operation
to confiscate weapons from the Jewish residents of Judea and Samaria,
according to Channel 10 TV. The purpose of the operation is described as
‘putting the settlers’ gun permits in order.’” One of the residents, Hillel
Reinus of Yitzhar, said: “I have no idea who is giving the order, it seems to
be coming from up high, but they’ve decided to take the weapons away from
everyone.” The same article explains the reaction of Knesset member Aryeh
Eldad: MK Aryeh Eldad
(NU/NRP) wrote a letter to Defense Minister Ehud Barak following the report,
saying, “Army representatives have recently informed the military security
coordinators that they intend to collect most of the weapons which the
residents of Judea and Samaria use for self-defense. When a move such as this
is made along with the release of hundreds of terrorists, the deployment of
Palestinian policemen in Shechem (three of whom were involved in the murder
of Ido Zoldan) and the arming of these policemen with weapons, ammunition and
armored personnel carriers, this amounts to making the settlers fair game and
sending the terror organizations a clear message that they may murder Jews.” “When all this
is done against the backdrop of your announcement that you are joining the
‘expulsion/compensation’ plan, this amounts to blackmail. You are trying to
encourage Jews to run away from Judea and Samaria, and in order to prod them
along you are taking away their weapons and urging terrorists to attack
them,” he wrote. “With this
letter,” Eldad concluded, “I wish to inform you that the settlers of Judea
and Samaria will hold you personally responsible for any casualties among the
Jews in Judea and Samaria from now on, unless you immediately put an end to
the process of collecting the settlers’ weapons.”[3] The Israeli government seems to be pulling all the
stops to assist Mahmoud Abbas. It is almost as if Mahmoud Abbas himself were
in control of the Israeli government, isn’t it? And what does Abbas do in
return? First: “Just one day after the Annapolis conference at which the PA
recognized the State of Israel's right to exist in peace and security, the
PA's official television station screened a map that shows a Palestinian
state in place of Israel.”[3a] And then, “The PA
legislature has passed the first reading of a law forbidding any concessions
in, or even negotiations regarding, Jerusalem. Ahmed Bahar, a
leading Hamas member and the Deputy Speaker of the Palestinian Authority
parliament, announced Thursday that the body had passed a first reading of a
‘Jerusalem bill.’ The legislation, proposed by Hamas parliament member
Ahmed Abu Hilbiya, absolutely bans giving up any part of Jerusalem. The bill
states that Jerusalem, according to its ‘borders recognized during the period
of the Islamic Khalifate,’ is ‘Palestinian, Arab, Islamic land.’ It
further avers that all of Jerusalem, ‘including its archaeological sites and
the sites that are holy to Islam and Christianity, are waqf (dedicated in
sanctity) for Palestinian, Arab and Islamic generations.’ This would
appear to include not only the Temple Mount, but also the Western Wall, the
Jewish Quarter, and the City of David. The new PA
bill also states that it is forbidden to discuss, cede, or negotiate over any
part of Jerusalem, or hold a referendum on this matter - and that if such
negotiations or votes are held, they are null and void in advance.
Anyone who violates the above provisions on behalf of the PA will be
considered guilty of treason, the bill states, and will be liable to the
relevant punishments. The PA legislature
will convene ‘soon,’ Bahar said, to pass the law’s second reading, after
which it will be passed on to PA chairman and Fatah chief Mahmoud Abbas for
his signature.”[4] What is the real meaning of this? In my opinion, it
is a piece of theater. By laying claim to all of Jerusalem -- a city that has
been majority Jewish since the mid-19th c., before the Zionist movement even
began -- the Palestinian Authority can be represented by the international
media as making a great concession when it agrees, later, to just East
Jerusalem as its capital. Any Israeli resistance to divide Jerusalem will be
represented as ‘intransigence.’ This pressure will give Ehud Olmert the
political cover he needs to divide Jerusalem, something he has signaled
already that he means to do: the above article explains that as far back as
July 1980, “the Knesset approved the Jerusalem Law, determining that
‘complete and united Jerusalem is Israel’s capital.’ However, current Prime
Minister Ehud Olmert said last week that ‘the Government of Israel has a
sovereign right to negotiate anything on behalf of Israel.’” Like a true
Orwellian character, Olmert will negotiate against the wishes of most
Israelis but “on behalf of Israel.” The PA ‘concession’ on Jerusalem,
naturally, will be compensated with the evacuation of the Jews living in
Judea and Samaria, and the ceding of these territories to PLO/Fatah and
Hamas. The behavior of the Israeli government is putting
other in danger, too, besides the Jews. Christians in Israel should also be
asking themselves what Muslim rule will mean for them. Above we see that
Muslims would like to have control of all archaeological sites, including
Jewish and Christian holy places. The town of Bethlehem, believed to be the
birthplace of Jesus of Nazareth, is a microcosm of what lies in store for
Christians as PLO/Fatah acquires more and more power. Writing in her 2003
book The Israelis, Donna Rosenthal explained that, “Since
assuming control in 1995, Arafat changed Bethlehem’s demography by expanding
municipal boundaries to include three refugee camps and encouraging thousands
of Muslims to move in. In 1948, on mosque served the greater Bethlehem area;
today there are more than ninety. Since Israel gave Arafat control over Bethlehem
in 1995, hundreds of Arab Christian families have left town. The majority of
Bethlehem’s Christians were engaged in the tourist industry; since the second
intifada destroyed tourism, most closed their shops, hotels, and restaurants.
Many of those who haven’t fled plan to. In 1990, Bethlehem was 60 percent
Christian; today it is less than 20 percent.”[5] Nazareth is Israel’s largest Christian city. Here is
a Nazareth scene from Donna Rosenthal’s 2003 book: “A cashier in
a sweets shop on Casanova street grows tense as he watches hundreds of
bearded men stream into a green canvas tent-mosque next to the Basilica.
Another fiery sermon by the young imam Sheik Nazim Abu Salim, who holds a
degree in biochemistry from Ben-Gurion University [useful for making bombs],
blasts from the loudspeakers: ‘Anyone who does doesn’t get on the Islam train
is done for. Anyone who wants to be certain in his life and also after his
death must convert to Islam. In the end, Islam will be the only religion left
in the world.’ ‘The ‘bearded ones’ are in charge and they are pushing us
out,’ the cashier mutters gloomily. ‘If Jesus were to come back, he’d be
shocked. Sometimes I am afraid to wear my cross.’”[6] Arab Christians,
predictably, are torn between the Arab identity, which inclines them
towards solidarity with Arab Muslims, and the Christian non-Muslim
identity, which puts them in the same category with Jews from the Muslim
point of view: they must be forcibly converted, enslaved, or killed.[6a] Arab Christians do not get a pass from Muslims
because they are Arab. Donna Rosenthal writes:
“According to
an IDF spokesperson, a slightly increasing number of Israeli Arab Christians
over age eighteen are either volunteering for the IDF or performing national
service in schools and hospitals in their communities. In 2001, a young
sergeant from Tur'an, a tranquil Galilee village where Jesus is said to have
turned wine into water, became the first Christian soldier in the Israeli
army to be killed in the intifadam shot in the head by a Palestinian sniper
in Gaza. He and a number of other Arab Christians from this village enlisted
after nearly one hundred men linked with radical clerics burst into a church
during Good Friday Mass in 1997 ‘Tur'an must be 100 percent Muslim.’
Christian-Muslim clashes continued for days. A Christian art student was
stabbed to death. Rioters fire-bombed Christian homes. ‘The Muslims call us
traitors now,’ said a soldier, a pastor's son, who keeps his army rifle close
by during leave; the family kitchen was pockmarked with bulltets. More and
more, young Christians are unwilling to turn the other cheek. ‘We are not
going to live in fear anymore. I think we realized that our future was more
important than all the words of nationalism. You know the Muslims don't think
of us as part of that nationalism, except when they need us. That's the
truth. They talk about all this stuff against Israel and against occupation and
collaboration. But they only care about fellow Muslims. We used to eat from
the same plate, but now this village is torn apart. We [as Christians] have
to do what is right for us now.’”[6b] What portends the new US stance on Iran's rush to acquire nuclear
weapons?
|
|||||||||||||||
|
|
|
Is this article useful? Help us do
more with a donation . |
|
|
What does this all achieve? Pro-Iranian Shi’ite
control of Iraq allows Iran to become the dominating presence in the emerging
‘Shia Crescent.’
This will allow Iran to launch a direct,
conventional attack on Israel’s northern border, because Hezbollah, Lebanon,
and Syria are already functioning as Iranian satellites.
This aspect of the future attack on Israel,
therefore, is now reaching its final stage with the staged ‘thaw’ between the
US and Iran that will allow US troops to be evacuated from Iraq when the new
US administration comes in, leaving that country awash in sophisticated US
weaponry that can be used against the Jewish State.
There is also the question of Iraq’s WMDs, which
probably did exist and ended up in Syria, something that the US government
has gone out of its way to keep from public view.
__________________________________________________________
Footnotes and Further Reading
__________________________________________________________
[1] “Israel
frees Palestinian prisoners to boost Abbas”; EuroNews; English Version,
December 3, 2007, news, 112 words.
[2]
“HOW DID THE ‘PALESTINIAN MOVEMENT’ EMERGE? The British sponsored it. Then
the German Nazis, and the US”; Historical and Investigative Research; 13 June
2006; by Francisco Gil-White.
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/pal_mov4.htm
“PLO/Fatah's Nazi training was CIA-sponsored”;
Historical and Investigative Research; 22 July 2007; by Francisco Gil-White.
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/cia-fatah.htm
[3]
“Judea and Samaria: IDF Rounding Up Jews' Weapons”; Israel National News;
2 Tevet 5768, December 11, '07; by Gil Ronen.
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/124487
[3a] "After Annapolis: PA Television Erases
Israel From Map"; Israel National News; 3 Tevet5768, December 12,
'07; by Hillel Fendel
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/124417
[4]
“New PA Law: Negotiating Jerusalem is an Act of Treason”; Israel National
News; 2 Tevet 5768, December 11, '07; by Hillel Fendel.
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/124500
[5]
Rosenthal, D. 2003. The Israelis: Ordinary people in an extraordinary land.
New York: Free Press. (p.311)
[6]
Rosenthal (2003:312)
[6a] To learn about what Muslims are supposed to
do with non-Muslims, read:
"The religion of peace?: What, exactly, is 'moderate Islam'?"; from THE CULTURE OF ISLAM; Historical and Investigative Research; 10 January 2007; by Francisco Gil-White.
http://www.hirhome.com/islam/culture01.htm"Dhimmitude and slavery: The fates of non-Muslims (and Muslims, too) in Islamic society"; from THE CULTURE OF ISLAM; Historical and Investigative Research; 14 October 2007; by Francisco Gil-White
http://www.hirhome.com/islam/culture02.htm
[6b] Rosenthal (2003:319)
[7]
“Saving Annapolis by Shifting its Focus to … Iran”; DEBKAfile Exclusive
Analysis; November 26, 2007, 12:28 PM (GMT+02:00)
http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=1316
[8]
“Bush Drops Military Option, Tehran Slams Door on Diplomacy”; DEBKAfile
Special Report December 3, 2007, 11:03 PM (GMT+02:00
http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=1316
[8a] "Bush to Go Public on Iran’s Secret Nuclear
Arms Activities"; DEBKAfile Exclusive Report; November 12, 2007, 11:22
AM (GMT+02:00)
http://www.debka.org/article.php?aid=1314
[8b] "New U.S. Military Envoy to Supervise
PA Progress on Terrorism"; Israel National News; 3 Tevet 5768, December
12, '07; by Hana Levi Julian.
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/124416
(IsraelNN.com) U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza
Rice has appointed a NATO veteran to serve as America's military point man in
the Middle East.
It will be the task of General James Jones, a Marine Corps general who
retired last February and served until 2006 as the NATO Supreme Allied
Commander in Europe, to monitor activities between Israel and the Palestinian
Authority.
A 40-year-veteran, Jones headed a panel tasked by the Congress last summer
that studied the readiness of Iraq's police and military forces. He will be
retaining his present position as president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's
Institute for Energy.
Jones, whose official title will be Special Envoy for Middle East Security,
will be the one to determine whether Israel and the Palestinian Authority are
meeting their obligations in the first stage of the American Roadmap plan. He
will report directly to Condoleezza Rice.
"I believe we need an experienced leader who can address the regional
security challenges comprehensively and at the highest levels, and who can
provide the full support of our government to the partners as they work to
meet their responsibilities," said Rice.
"Israelis must be confident that a Palestinian state will increase their
security and not detract from it. Palestinians must be capable of standing on
their own and policing their territory. And countries in the region must be invested
in the success of this state-building effort, for their own security depends
on it too," she added.
The Ministry of Defense has not yet replied to a request for comments on the
appointment.
Dr. Gadi Eshel of Professors for a Strong Israel, however, was unimpressed by
Rice's remarks, saying that she has chosen to appoint someone to the post who
is "at the very least cold towards Israel."
Eshel pointed out that Jones is involved in cutting business deals with the
Gulf States, a major conflict of interest. "But what else can you expect
from the State Department?" he said. "It verges on pure
anti-Semitism, to appoint such a man to decide whether an act of terror has
been committed with the blessing of the Palestinian Authority or not.
"The very fact that another country nominates an individual – and G-d
forbid Israel would accept it – to judge whether an act of terror is
sufficiently defined as a real act of terror or a negligible breach of the
commitment of the PA [to end the violence] – that very fact is so
mind-boggling that I cannot see any other definition," he added.
U.S. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said that Jones will also be
monitoring the development of the PA security services as part of his role in
supervising the PA's compliance with the Roadmap requirements. McCormack
added that he will be working closely with Lt.-Gen. Keith Dayton, the U.S.
security coordinator who has been training the PA security forces for more
than a year.
Dayton faced harsh criticism by Congress members earlier this year after
admitting that Fatah terrorists had obtained American arms. His reputation
was also severely damaged when Hamas terrorists overran Gaza last June and
routed the Fatah militia he had trained.
At the beginning of this month, 300 of Dayton's PA security troops made their
debut in the "terrorist capital" of Samaria, Shechem. Dayton has
been supervising their training at an American-funded base in Jericho, with
new weapons purchased by the Bush administration.
[8c] "Bush Embarks on Saudi-Brokered Deal
with Tehran"; From DEBKA-Net-Weekly Exclusive Updated by DEBKAfile;
December 8, 2007, 10:02 PM (GMT+02:00).
http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=1321
[8d] "Shas minister: Americans' attitude to
report reminiscent of Auschwitz: Yitzhak Cohen says during cabinet meeting
'US intelligence report was ordered by someone who wants dialogue with
Tehran. Minister Eli Yishai: 'We must not play dumb in the face of the
report's findings'; Y-Net News; 12.09.07, 14:30; Roni Sofer.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3480595,00.html
[8e] Ehud Olmert's statements were reported in:
"Israeli prime minister rejects US intelligence report on Iran nuclear program"; Associated Press Worldstream, December 12, 2007 Wednesday 12:42 AM GMT, INTERNATIONAL NEWS, 419 words, By STEVEN GUTKIN, Associated Press Writer
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). On
6 February 2006, The Australian reported that “Israeli officials were
taken aback by the approval of a clause in the IAEA document implying
dismantlement of Israel’s nuclear arsenal.” How taken aback? Well, not that
much: “Israel yesterday applauded the decision by the international community
to move against Iran, despite discomfort about the resolution’s indirect
reference to Israel’s own alleged nuclear program.”
SOURCE: Iran threat like Hitler: Merkel, THE AUSTRALIAN, February 6, 2006 Monday, All-round Country Edition, WORLD; Pg. 11, 935 words, Peter Conradi, Abraham Rabinovich
[9] “Will
the US attack Iran?: An alternative hypothesis”; Historical and Investigative
Research; 23 Feb 2006; by Francisco Gil-White.
http://www.hirhome.com/iraniraq/attack_iran.htm
[9a] “The Iranian Hostage Crisis - Again: Is this
hostage crisis different from the 1979-80 Iranian hostage crisis?”;
Historical and Investigative Research; 03 April 2007; by Francisco Gil-White.
http://www.hirhome.com/iraniraq/hostage_crisis_2007.htm
[10]
“If the Ayatollah Khomeini was an enemy of the United States ruling elite,
why did he adopt the CIA's security service?”; Historical and Investigative
Research - 21 Feb 2006; by Francisco Gil-White
http://www.hirhome.com/iraniraq/savak.htm
[11]
Under the official hypothesis that he was the enemy of the US ruling elite,
Khomeini’s immediate provocation of a war with Iraq is difficult to explain.
The previous autocratic and repressive dictator of Iran, the Shah (King) Reza
Pahlavi, had been a total US puppet, installed in power in a 1953 CIA coup
(a). In consequence most of the military equipment of the Iranian armed
forces was American-made. The Iranian revolution had involved some fighting,
and so “Iran at that time was in dire need of arms and spare parts for its
American-made arsenal.”(b) And yet Khomeini went out of his way to
engage in dramatic anti-American provocations at the same time that he picked
a fight with Iraq. For example, Khomeini seized the US embassy in Iran and
took its personnel hostage.
An absurdity? On the face of it, certainly. If
Khomeini needed US spare parts for its military, then how could he afford to
attack Iraq and the US simultaneously?
But the absurdity can be resolved if you posit that in
reality the US ruling elite and Khomeini were never enemies. In this view,
like his predecessor the shah, Khomeini was a US asset, and his
‘provocations’ were part of a US-driven political theater for the
unsuspecting global audience, there to generate certain appearances that the
US ruling elite found useful for its geopolitical game.(c) What this view
requires is that Khomeini would get his money and spare parts from the US
quite despite his apparent provocations.
And he did.
The Washington Post claimed in 1980 that “the
seizure of the American hostages has deprived Iran’s military of much-needed
U.S. and European spare parts for its almost entirely imported military
equipment.”(d). But this was false. The ‘hostage crisis’ did not deprive
Khomeini of anything. On the contrary. The United States government offered
to pay billions of dollars in exchange for the release of the hostages,
which Iran accepted (the final sum was close to $8 billion) (e). And
throughout the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s, Iran received secret shipments of
US weapons, which became a great embarrassment to the Reagan administration
when this became known in 1986 (this was called, alternately, ‘Iran-gate’ and
the ‘Iran-Contra scandal’). US officials claimed when caught that the arms shipments
had the purpose of getting Iran to lean on the Hezbollah terrorists it has
always patronized in Lebanon, who at the time had taken some other Americans
hostage. The media was quick to make this explanation seem credible. For
example, the Washington Post told its readers late in 1986 that, “according
to informed sources” (in other words, according to alleged sources that
nobody could check), “an Iranian government emissary told U.S.
representatives he would arrange for the release of an American hostage held
in Lebanon if the United States would sell Iran 500 TOW antitank missiles”
(f). But this explanation was absurd. History’s greatest power does not arm
to the teeth a fifth-rate power so it can grovel for its influence on a tiny
terrorist organization in a third country, and maybe get some hostages
released.
But in any case, it couldn’t be true even in
principle. Limited congressional investigations into the relationship between
Reagan and Khomeini brought to light, as the New York Times reported later,
in 1999, that:
“Soon after
taking office in 1981, the Reagan Administration secretly and abruptly
changed United States policy and allowed Israel to sell several billion
dollars’ worth of American-made arms, spare parts and ammunition to the
Iranian Government. . .
. . .The
change in policy came before the Iranian-sponsored seizure of American
hostages in Lebanon began in 1982. . .” [my emphasis] (g)
So the US had the Israelis sell “several billion
dollars’ worth” in arms secretly to the nearby Iranians; meanwhile, explains
the NYT, “The Reagan Administration continued to replenish Israel’s stockpile
of American-made weapons.” But the key point is this: if the US policy to
send US armament to Iran began before the hostages were taken in Lebanon,
then arming Iran had nothing to do with buying the freedom of these hostages.
The NYT pretends that, since it didn't, “No American rationale for permitting
covert arms sales to Iran could be established.” But this is false. Such a
rationale could be established, it’s just that the New York Times is not
allowed to say it: the US had a policy to sponsor the growth of Islamist
terrorism, which is precisely why the US program through Israel -- which
demonstrates the total lack of independence of Israel, a state that Iran was
promising to destroy -- “was overtaken by the [direct US] arms shipments to
Iran,” as the same NYT article states.
NOTES:
(a) “HOW THE UNITED STATES DESTROYED DEMOCRACY IN
IRAN IN 1953: Re-print of 16 April 2000 New York Times article”; with an introduction
by Francisco Gil-White; Historical and Investigative Research, 5 January
2006;
http://www.hirhome.com/iraniraq/iran-coup.htm
(b) The New York Times, December 8, 1991, The Iran
Pipeline: A Hidden Chapter/A special report.; U.S. Said to Have Allowed
Israel to Sell Arms to Iran, By Seymour Hersh
(c) “GRAND THEATER: THE US, THE PLO, AND THE
AYATOLLAH KHOMEINI: Why did the US government, in 1979, delegate to the PLO
the task of negotiating the safety of American hostages at the US embassy in
Tehran?”; Historical and Investigative Research; 10 December 2005; by
Francisco Gil-White
http://www.hirhome.com/iraniraq/plo-iran.htm
(d) The Washington Post, September 24, 1980,
Wednesday, Final Edition, First Section; A22, 1258 words, Centuries of Enmity
Fuel New Iranian-Iraqi War, By William Branigin, Washington Post Foreign
Service.
(e) U.S. PROMISES IRAN $5.5 BILLION ON DAY HOSTAGES
ARE FREED; ASSETS ARE PUT AT $9.5 BILLION In All, 70 Percent Would Be Made
Available Within a few Days of Americans' Release; By BERNARD GWERTZMAN
Special to The New York Times. New York Times (1857. Jan 11, 1981. p. 1 (2
pages)
"Largest Private Financial Transfer in
History"; New York Times; Jan 25, 1981; by STEVEN RATTNER; pg. E3
(f) Iranian Offered Release Of American Hostage For
500 TOW Missiles, The Washington Post, December 31, 1986, Wednesday, Final
Edition, FIRST SECTION; PAGE A1, 1087 words, Walter Pincus, Washington Post
Staff Writer, NATIONAL NEWS, FOREIGN NEWS
(g) The Iran Pipeline: A Hidden Chapter/A special
report.; U.S. Said to Have Allowed Israel to Sell Arms to Iran, The New York
Times, December 8, 1991, Sunday, Late Edition - Final, Section 1; Part 1;
Page 1; Column 1; Foreign Desk, 2897 words, By SEYMOUR M. HERSH,
Special to The New York Times, WASHINGTON, Dec. 7
[12]
“Mr. Bush and his aides were urged to rethink Persian Gulf policy from the
moment they took office. Shortly after Mr. Bush won the Presidency in
November 1988, a State Department strategist drafted a paper for the
President-elect urging that the United States take a fresh approach to the
region.
Mr. Khalilzad advised in the paper that America's
new policy should concentrate on strengthening Iran and containing Iraq. The
paper was included in the State Department Policy Planning Staff's official
‘transition book’' which reviewed all the foreign policy issues the new President
would soon have to confront.”
SOURCE: THE
1992 CAMPAIGN; Bush's Greatest Glory Fades As Questions on Iraq Persist, The
New York Times, June 27, 1992, Saturday, Late Edition - Final, George Bush,
Section 1; Page 1; Column 5; Foreign Desk, 2554 words, By ELAINE SCIOLINO
with MICHAEL WINES, Special to The New York Times, WASHINGTON, June 26
“Mr. Bush and his aides were urged to rethink
Persian Gulf policy from the moment they took office. Shortly after Mr. Bush
won the Presidency in November 1988, a State Department strategist drafted a
paper for the President-elect urging that the United States take a fresh
approach to the region.
Mr. Khalilzad advised in the paper that America's
new policy should concentrate on strengthening Iran and containing Iraq. The
paper was included in the State Department Policy Planning Staff's official
'transition book,' which reviewed all the foreign policy issues the new
President would soon have to confront.”
SOURCE: THE
1992 CAMPAIGN; Bush's Greatest Glory Fades As Questions on Iraq Persist, The
New York Times, June 27, 1992, Saturday, Late Edition - Final, George Bush,
Section 1; Page 1; Column 5; Foreign Desk, 2554 words, By ELAINE SCIOLINO
with MICHAEL WINES, Special to The New York Times, WASHINGTON, June 26
To read about how the US pushed to have the Kuwaitis
provoke the Iraqis, read the section entitled “The US ordered Kuwait to
provoke Iraq” in the following piece:
“Why Bush
Sr.'s 1991 Gulf War? To Protect Iranian Islamism: Like father, like son: this
is also the purpose of Bush Jr.’s war; Historical and Investigative Research;
20 Dec 2005; by Francisco Gil-White.
http://www.hirhome.com/iraniraq/gulfwar.htm
[13] Zalmay Khalilzad argued that,
“The lesson of
Afghanistan is that arming the victim of aggression is a prudent and workable
alternative to the dispatch of U.S. troops or to appeasement. That's because
it reinforces economic and political pressures, which by themselves seldom
succeed against a determined aggressor.
…As in the
case of Afghanistan, the enterprise could be funded in large part by moderate
Islamic states.”
SOURCE:
"Arm the Bosnians"; The Washington Post; December 28, 1992, Monday,
Final Edition; BYLINE: Zalmay Khalilzad; SECTION: EDITORIAL; PAGE A15; 894
words.
An investigation by the government of the
Netherlands showed that the Pentagon and the Iranian government had teamed up
to import thousands of mujahedin 'holy warriors' into Bosnia:
“How the U.S. & Iran have Cooperated to Sponsor Muslim Terror (And this while loudly denouncing one another in public...)”; Emperor’s Clothes; 13 April 2003; by Jared Israel
http://emperors-clothes.com/analysis/deja.htm
Ïn Bosnia the US was not arming “the victim of
aggression,” but Alija Izetbegovic,
who had written a book calling for an exterminationist jihad against
the non-Muslims of Bosnia. But that is just as well, because, contrary
to what Zalmay Khalilzad wrote, neither had the US armed “the victim of
aggression” in Afghanistan. This is what Zbigniev Brzezinski -- Jimmy
Carter’s National Security Advisor, author of the Afghan strategy, and
Khalilzad’s mentor -- explained to Le Nouvel Observateur in an
interview:
[Quote from Le
Nouvel Observateur begins here]
LE NOUVEL
OBSERVATEUR: Former CIA director Robert Gates states in his memoirs: The
American secret services began, six months before the Soviet intervention, to
support the Mujahideen [in Afghanistan]. At that time you were president
Carter’s security advisor; thus you played a key role in this affair. Do you
confirm this statement?
ZBIGNIEW
BRZEZINSKI: Yes. According to the official version, the CIA's support for the
Mujahideen began in 1980, i.e. after the Soviet army's invasion of
Afghanistan on 24 December 1979. But the reality, which was kept secret until
today, is completely different: Actually it was on 3 July 1979 that president
Carter signed the first directive for the secret support of the opposition
against the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And on the same day I wrote a note,
in which I explained to the president that this support would in my opinion
lead to a military intervention by the Soviets.
[Quote ends
here]
SOURCE:
“Ex-Security Chief Brzezinski’s Interview makes clear: The Muslim Terrorist
Apparatus was Created by US Intelligence as a Geopolitical Weapon. The US
& European States are still using Brzezinski’s Muslim terrorist
strategy!”; Emperor’s Clothes; 6 September 2004; by Jared Israel.
http://emperors-clothes.com/interviews/brz.htm
[14] On
24 March 2003, the Financial Times wrote as follows:
“It may be
part of George W. Bush's axis of evil; some predict it will be next on the
list for US pre-emptive action; but Iran is the only one of Iraq's neighbours
that wholeheartedly supports regime change in Baghdad, even if via a US-led
invasion.
Getting rid of
Saddam Hussein and his government is one of the few objectives on which the
various factions of the Tehran regime agree. Since becoming convinced that
the Bush administration is indeed determined to effect forcible change in
Iraq, Tehran has been egging on Washington, albeit in private. Whenever the
US has needed Tehran's help, the Iranians have been more than happy to
oblige.”
SOURCE: “War
Sirens Herald Iran's Hour of Revenge”; Financial Times; March 24, 2003,
Monday Usa Edition 1; Section: Comment & Analysis; Pg. 17; Headline: War
Sirens Herald Iran's Hour Of Revenge; By Khairallah Khairallah
You may read the entire Financial Times piece,
and an Emperor’s Clothes analysis of it, here:
“If the US Has Hostile Relations Towards Iran, Shouldn't Someone Tell the Iranians?”; Article from the Financial Times with comments by Jared Israel; Emperor’s Clothes; 27 March 2003.
http://emperors-clothes.com/docs/helping.htm
On the question of US assistance to Iran during the
invasion, please consult:
U.S. Bombed
Bases of Iranian Rebels in Iraq; International Herald Tribune | New York
Times; Thursday 17 April 2003; by Douglas Jehl
To read the above International Herald
Tribune/NewYork Times piece, and an Emperor’s Clothes analysis, visit:
“U.S.
‘Quietly’ Bombs Anti-Regime Iranian Rebels” -- Article by Douglas Jehl,
International Herald Tribune, Comments by Jared Israel; Emperor’s Clothes; 19
April 2003; by Jared Israel
http://emperors-clothes.com/news/bombed.htm
The following analysis is also useful:
“Reader Says:
‘EC is Wrong; Iran is not Helping the US in Iraq’ -- Jared Israel Replies”;
Emperor’s Clothes; 6 April 2003; by Jared Israel
http://emperors-clothes.com/analysis/seale.htm
[15]
The Guardian says, about the ongoing invasion of Iraq, that
“Iran is the
true winner of that war. They only had to sit tight and smile as the West
delivered on a golden plate all the influence Iran had always sought in the
Middle East. The US and its allies will soon be gone from Afghanistan and
Iraq, leaving Iranian-backed Shias dominant in both countries, their
influence well spread across Syria, a chunk of Saudi Arabia and other
countries for decades to come. Historic Iranian ambitions have been fulfilled
without firing a shot while the US is reduced to fist-shaking. How foolish
was that?”
SOURCE:
Comment & Debate: No more fantasy diplomacy: cut a deal with the mullahs:
Iran cannot be prevented from developing nuclear weapons, only delayed. We
must negotiate not ratchet up the rhetoric, The Guardian (London) -
Final Edition, February 7, 2006 Tuesday, GUARDIAN COMMENT AND DEBATE PAGES ;
Pg. 31, 1095 words, Polly Toynbee
But why is this presented as “foolish”?
What we have to explain is why every major policy
initiative of the US in the Middle East, year after year, turns out to
benefit Iran. The Guardian says: incompetence. But will incompetence produce
the exact same result, year after numbing year? Perhaps it can. But the
obvious hypothesis, when an actor engages over and over again in behaviors
that achieve always the same result, is that the actor desires this result:
the US ruling elite wants to strengthen Iran. This hypothesis, however, will
not be put on the table. Not even to be considered. Not even to be dismissed
with derision.
In this way, the most obvious hypothesis becomes unthinkable.
[16]
Zalmay Khalilzad called for ““a withdrawal of American forces next year.”
SOURCE: White House sets stage for pullback of troops, The Toronto Star,
November 24, 2005 Thursday, NEWS; Pg. A12, 729 words, Tim Harper, Toronto
Star, WASHINGTON
Zalmay Khalilzad says that Iran is “advancing its
long-term goal of establishing [regional] domination.” SOURCE: “Iran Won’t
Need an Exit Strategy: Top Iraqi Officials Hammer Out a Memorandum of
Understanding in Tehran – and take America’s Ambassador in Baghdad by
Surprise”; Intel; Newsweek; 28 November 2005; pp.30-31; by Scott Johnson and
Michael Hirsh.
[16a] "Bush
Embarks on Saudi-Brokered Deal with Tehran"; From DEBKA-Net-Weekly
Exclusive Updated by DEBKAfile; December 8, 2007, 10:02 PM (GMT+02:00).
http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=1321
[17] “Desacredita Khatami una guerra inevitable: Destaca el ex Presidente persa los intereses comunes entre Irán y EU”; Reforma; INTERNACIONAL; por Leonardo Valero; p.2.
[18]
“US urges Iran to join Iraq talks”; Financial Times; April 22 2007; By
FT reporters
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/3f96545e-f0f9-
11db-838b-000b5df10621.html?nclick_check=1
[18a] "Iran,
US say they are willing to hold talks on Iraq"; Associated Press;
TEHERAN, Iran. Reprinted in the Jerusalem Post on May 14, 2007.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1178708594274
&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
[19]
“Bush Jr.’s War on Iraq: A general introduction”; Historical and Investigative
Research; 1 Dec 2005; by Francisco Gil-White.
http://www.hirhome.com/iraniraq/iraq-general-intro.htm
|
█
Part 1 - What you don't know could cost you. █ Part 2 - The Arab League, then and forever █ Part 3 - Annapolis: The strategic aftermath |
Notify me of new HIR pieces!
