Notify me of new HIR pieces!

HIR mailing list

Understanding Annapolis

An HIR Series

Historical and Investigative Research - 13 December 2007
by Francisco Gil-White

1  |  2  3




Annapolis: The strategic aftermath

What is being prepared for the Israeli Jews (and the Christians)?


Table of Contents

Is the Israeli government allying with PLO/Fatah and Hamas against the Jews in Judea and Samaria?

What portends the new US stance on Iran's rush to acquire nuclear weapons?


Is the Israeli government allying with PLO/Fatah and Hamas against the Jews in Judea and Samaria?

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?

Immediately before the Annapolis Conference a DEBKAfile “exclusive analysis” stated that, “with only hours to spare, the US organizers of the Middle East conference opening in Annapolis Tuesday decided to make the best of a forlorn event by switching its leitmotif from the intractable Israeli-Palestinian dispute to Iran -- and its multiple threats to the Middle East.”  What the US ruling elite was now hoping to achieve in Annapolis, DEBKA said, was “a united Arab front against Iran.”[7]

Immediately after the Annapolis Conference, DEBKA wrote:

“In a radical about-face, White House officials suddenly ‘discovered’ Monday, Dec. 3, that Iran had halted its nuclear weapons program four years ago... This ‘discovery’ appeared in the latest National Intelligence Estimate, together with the comment that Iran seems less determined to develop nuclear arms than previously believed and is more vulnerable to international pressure...

...Monday, too, even the ‘moderate’ Arab turnout at the Middle East conference proved to be an illusion when Saudi King Abdullah walked into the GCC conference hall in Doha hand in hand with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The Iranian president was invited to the Gulf summit for the first time. The ‘moderate’ Arab front against Iran, proudly presented by US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and prime minister Ehud Olmert, melted away to nothing.”[8]

It seems, therefore, that DEBKAfile’s pre-Annapolis “exclusive analyses” -- based on what appear to have been rumors or deliberate official disinformation -- got everything dead wrong, as DEBKA now admits.

First, the push to give Judea and Samaria to PLO/Fatah was hardly abandoned at Annapolis. On the contrary: the Israeli government committed itself to resolving the issue of the handover by the end of 2008. Moreover, in true imperial fashion, a US general -- one who is “involved in cutting business deals with the Gulf states” -- will be the one deciding whether PLO/Fatah is living up to its obligations in the 'Roadmap.' He will be coordinating closely with another US military officer, Keith Dayton./ This Dayton has in fact been training the 'Palestinian Authority' troops for a year, and it is worrisome that “Dayton faced harsh criticism by [US] Congress members earlier this year after admitting that Fatah terrorists had obtained American arms.” In other words, the people in charge of making PLO/Fatah terrorists more deadly will be telling us whether or not they are supposedly behaving.[8b]

The “radical about face” that now assures us there is no nuclear threat from Iran is especially dramatic given that on 12 November another DEBKAfile “exlusive analysis” had reported that, according to its Washington sources, “the US president’s plan is to put before the public new findings on Iran’s nuclear secrets, drawn from data gathered by the United States, Russia, France, Germany and Israel, and use the publicity as a fulcrum to push hard for tough international sanctions [against Iran].”[8a] And the supposed US-sponsored “united Arab front against Iran” was a sham, since it “melted away to nothing.” In fact, as DEBKA also reports, following its declaration that Iran is not a threat, the US government is now embarking on a Saudi-brokered deal to get along with Iran.[8c]

What is the Israeli reaction?

“According to senior [Israeli] ministers,” wrote Y-Net News on 9 December, “Israel has information proving that Iran did not cease in its efforts to obtain a nuclear bomb, and is only acting in secret. Nevertheless, none of the three top ministers, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, Defense Minister Ehud Barak, or Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni seeks to create a confrontation with the American administration.”[8d] What geopolitical relationship will be consistent with the Israeli government being reluctant to confront the US government when it says that Iran is supposedly not a mortal threat to Israel? One in which the US is the master and Israel is the pet, required to be docile even when the master is cruel (and yet, high-profile US academics will have you believe that the US -- the mightiest power in history -- is supposedly Israel's pet). Internal political pressures being what they are, however, Ehud Olmert on 12 December issued what the Associated Press calls a “fierce rebuttal to a US Intelligence assessment that Iran has halted its nuclear weapons.” And yet Olmert added that he wanted to work through the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which has already signalled it means to produce a “nuclear free Middle-East,” something that would require stripping Israel of its nuclear deterrent.[8e]

Now, but why was DEBKA so wrong? Because sound geopolitical predictions cannot be based on the latest rumor; they have to be based on an analysis of history.

Way back in February 2006, at a time of supposed ‘crisis’ between the US and Iran, when everybody and his second cousin were predicting an imminent US attack on Iran, Historical and Investigative Research published an article predicting that there would be no such attack.[9] Then, when Iran seized a few British officers and everybody once again predicted an imminent attack, since this was a perfect excuse, HIR published an article explaining that this was just political theater, with a structure identical to the 1979-80 Iranian hostage crisis, meant to make Iran look very tough. Nothing was likely to happen. Indeed, the hostages were released and there was no war.[9a] HIR’s analysis was naturally not based on the latest rumors in the media (or else we would have predicted a US attack against Iran). We based it on the documented history of US-Iranian relations since 1979, when the Islamists took power. This history reveals a very close alliance between the US and Iranian ruling elites -- the mutual invective is just theater, there to dupe you. I summarize this history briefly below:

1) In the wake of the 1979 Iranian Revolution, Islamist leader Ayatollah Khomeini staged a coup d'etat and then absorbed SAVAK wholesale. This had been the deposed Shah’s repressive internal security apparatus, and now, with its personnel intact, it was renamed SAVAMA: Khomeini’s tool of internal repression. And yet, before the revolution Khomeini had been promising to dismantle SAVAK because it was a repressive extension of the hated CIA, the intelligence agency of ‘Great Satan.’ Indeed, SAVAK had always had very close ties with the CIA because it had been created by the CIA and because the Shah was a US puppet, installed by a CIA operation in a 1953 coup. So there was a stark contradiction between the anti-US words of the Ayatollah Khomeini when he dramatically denounced ‘Great Satan’ in his speeches, and his pro-‘Great Satan’ actions when he absorbed wholesale a CIA subsidiary. Actions speak louder than words.[10]

2) The Iranian Revolution depleted the Iranian military which was in dire need of spare parts. Those spare parts could only be American because the entire Iranian military infrastructure was US-made (because the Shah had been a US puppet). This means that the Ayatollah Khomeini could not afford to provoke a war with Iraq immediately after he took power -- unless, that is, he knew already that the US would supply him with weapons. What happened? a) The Ayatollah Khomeini provoked a war with Iraq; b) The US gave Khomeini about $8 billion dollars (officially to release the well-treated hostages in the US embassy in Tehran); and c) In secret, the US began sending the Iranians billions of dollars in weaponry, every year, which the Iranians bought with the money for the hostages (when this was discovered it was called the Iran-Contra scandal, or ‘Iran-gate.’) When caught, the US government claimed that the arms shipments were to gain the release of a handful of American hostages held in Lebanon by the Iranian-backed Hezbollah. This explanation was ridiculous on the face of it, but in any case the arms shipments to Iran began in 1981, and the first hostage in Lebanon was not taken until 1982, so the arms shipments had nothing to do with releasing hostages. There was, therefore, a stark contradiction between the anti-Khomeini words of the US government, when they denounced him as an Islamist terrorist and claimed to prefer an Iraqi victory in the Iran-Iraq war, and the louder pro-Khomeini actions of giving Khomeini billions of dollars with which to secretly buy American weapons for his war against Iraq.[11]

3) When the Iran-Iraq war ended badly for Iran despite all the US help, and Iran had to ask for a cease-fire in 1988, Zalmay Khalilzad, at the State Department, wrote a briefing paper for incoming President Bush Sr. in which he called for “strengthening Iran and containing Iraq.” The next year he authored an article in the Los Angeles Times where he argued that “Tehran is looking for ways to overcome strategic inferiority and gain a degree of protection against Iraq,” and that “a further weakened Iran would not increase stability,” and so it would be better -- once again -- to strengthen Iran. Right after that, Khalilzad was named assistant undersecretary of defense for policy planning, following which the US prodded Kuwait to provoke Iraq into attacking it. This produced the excuse -- ‘defending Kuwait’ -- for the 1991 Gulf War that destroyed Iraq. With that done, US policy became to contain Iraq. Iran was, in consequence, strengthened. In this case US actions and words were in harmony, because Khalilzad had called for “strengthening Iran and containing Iraq.”[12]

4) From his new perch at RAND Corp., a ‘think tank’ that pretends to be independent of the US government, Khalilzad argued in 1992 that the Bosnian Muslims should be armed and that the Afghan strategy -- relying on Islamic states to arm and train terrorist ‘holy warriors’ -- should be followed. Pentagon military intelligence coordinated with the Iranian government to import thousands of foreign mujahideen (or mujahedin = ‘holy warrior’) mercenaries into Bosnia. These soldiers fought for the Bosnian Islamist and terrorist Alija Izetbegovic, whose policy was genocide. During this time US and Iranian officials loudly exchanged invective, but actions speak louder than words.[13]

5) More recently, Iran in fact cooperated closely with the US invasion of Iraq. Not only that: the US military took action, while invading Iraq, to strengthen the Iranian regime, for example bombing the positions of Iranian rebels based in Iraq.[14] Everybody agrees that the effect of the US invasion of Iraq has been to install there a pro-Iranian Shi’ite government.[15] As early as 2005, Zalmay Khalilzad, the American viceroy in Iraq, began calling for an early withdrawal of US forces from Iraq even as he conceded that Iran was “advancing its long-term goal of establishing [regional] domination.”[16]

Now, over the course of the last two years, harsh words have been exchanged between US and Iranian officials concerning the Iranian nuclear program, and US President George Bush called Iran a component of the ‘Axis of Evil,’ a monicker so corny and melodramatic that it can only be topped by Iran calling the US ‘Great Satan.’ Once again, however, actions speak louder than words -- in this case, actions that the US has not undertaken. The US government has repeatedly done nothing to stop Iran’s nuclear ambitions, and, as we see above, it has now announced that it will do nothing.

DEBKA now says that “Saudi and American sources told DEBKAfile that President George W. Bush used the Annapolis conference as a piece of theater, which presented a sham moderate Arab front against Iran to disguise the intense work underway on a Saudi-mediated accommodation between Washington and Tehran.”[16a] The point, however, is that on the basis of the above history, DEBKA should have predicted, before the conference, that any semblance of producing an anti-Iranian front simply had to be theater, because a truly anti-Iranian policy would have completely contradicted the entire history of US foreign policy toward the Iranian Islamist regime.

Friendly noises are now also coming from the Iranians. In the last few days, former Iranian President Mohammed Khatami was here in Mexico City and he had a chat with reporters from the daily Reforma. Leonardo Valero wrote in that paper:

“...Dr. Khatami was confident yesterday that when neoconservative ideas are defeated -- which he thinks is possible in the presidential elections that will be held next year -- Washington may come to recognize that it has many common interests with Teheran.

The report presented last Tuesday by the intelligence agencies in the United States, where they recognize that Iran had slowed down its military nuclear program in 2004, Khatami opined, was evidence of the retreat of neoconservative ideas.”[17]

It appears that we are being prepared, by both US and Iranian officials, for a significant ‘thaw’ in US-Iranian relations that will be consummated by the time the next administration comes into power. But in fact there have been noises towards this -- amid the obligatory exchanges of insults -- all along. For example, earlier this year, in April, “Condoleeza Rice [was] urging Iran to join her at a high-level conference on the future of Iraq next week, signaling that Washington is now ready for a serious exchange of views with Tehran.” The Financial Times explained the context: “Washington’s need to secure the right regional environment for its eventual withdrawal from Iraq.”[18] Then, in May, the Jerusalem Post reported that “The US and Iran say they will hold upcoming talks in Baghdad about improving Iraq's security.” In the words of Gordon Johndroe, the White House's National Security spokesman, “The purpose is to try to make sure that the Iranians play a productive role in Iraq.”[18a] This all agrees with what HIR argued, as far back as late 2005, was the purpose of Bush’s war on Iraq: giving Iraq to Iran.[19]


Is this article useful? Help us do more with a donation .
Would you like to be notified of new articles? Sign up (it’s free) .


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.

“PLO/Fatah's Nazi training was CIA-sponsored”; Historical and Investigative Research; 22 July 2007; by Francisco Gil-White.

[3] “Judea and Samaria: IDF Rounding Up Jews' Weapons”; Israel National News; 2 Tevet 5768, December 11, '07; by Gil Ronen.

[3a] "After Annapolis: PA Television Erases Israel From Map"; Israel National News; 3 Tevet5768, December 12, '07; by Hillel Fendel

[4] “New PA Law: Negotiating Jerusalem is an Act of Treason”; Israel National News; 2 Tevet 5768, December 11, '07; by Hillel Fendel.

[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.

"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

[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)

[8] “Bush Drops Military Option, Tehran Slams Door on Diplomacy”; DEBKAfile Special Report December 3, 2007, 11:03 PM (GMT+02:00

[8a] "Bush to Go Public on Iran’s Secret Nuclear Arms Activities"; DEBKAfile Exclusive Report; November 12, 2007, 11:22 AM (GMT+02:00)

[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.

( 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).

[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.,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.

[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.

[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

[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.


(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;

(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

(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.

[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

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.

[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.

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

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

[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).

[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

[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.

[19] “Bush Jr.’s War on Iraq: A general introduction”; Historical and Investigative Research; 1 Dec 2005; by Francisco Gil-White.

  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!

HIR mailing list