http://www.hirhome.com/index_12.gif
www.hirhome.com

Notify me of new HIR pieces!

HIR mailing list

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
___________________________________________________________

The president of the United States has made angry public statements against Iran because Iran apparently wishes to acquire nuclear weaponry. Will the US attack Iran? Some of my readers have asked me to make a prediction.

This is my view: A scientist who pays attention not to the public statements, but to the record of past United States behaviors towards Iran and Israel, will have to be surprised if the US attacks Iran. Naturally, a scientist must predict what she expects, not what would surprise her, so the scientific prediction here is that the US will not attack Iran.

But can we think of an alternative reason, then, for all this media noise concerning Iran’s nukes? Yes: I believe the point of this is to produce a diplomatic effort to strip Israel of its nuclear arsenal.

For example, take a look at the Toronto Star:

“That Iran’s nuclear research program must come back under UN control goes without saying. But for that country’s pride, some counter-weight has to be offered.”[1]

What “counter-weight” will we throw at Iranian “pride” to make the Iranians stop seeking nukes? The Toronto Star drops a hint:

“Israel’s nuclear program is completely unsupervised by the UN.”

I think I can sniff the direction this is eventually going in: Israel’s nuclear arsenal dismantled in exchange for Iranian cooperation with a ‘nuclear-free Middle East.’ In fact, as we shall see below, the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) has already referred the matter to the UN Security Council with this very recommendation.

I can see, however, one plausible scenario where the US does indeed attack Iran. But it would not be to stop Iran’s nuclear program (though this would certainly be the publicly given reason). Rather, should the US -- surprisingly -- attack Iran, this will be in order -- not so surprisingly -- to create the conditions for a Muslim attack on Israel. I will explain this possibility as well.

___________________________________________________________

Table of Contents
( hyperlinked )

 The public atmosphere being created: not conducive
to a US attack on Iran

The true relation of geopolitical forces

 The true relationship between the US and Iran

 The true relationship between the US and Israel

 The impact of the media

 Raymond McGovern: useful if you understand who he is (CIA)

 Raymond McGovern says that Iran has a right to get nuclear weapons

The US threatens Iran, according to McGovern

  Israel threatens Iran, according to McGovern

 Is Raymond McGovern an anti-Israeli propagandist?

Says Raymond McGovern: destroy Israel’s nuclear program; buy a “nuclear-free zone in the Middle East”

 The IAEA calls for a 'nuclear-free Middle East.' The media follows McGovern in applauding this, and so does...the Israeli government!

  But the US might yet attack Iran

___________________________________________________________

The public atmosphere being created: not conducive to a US attack on Iran
___________________________________________________________

The public is being bombarded with the ‘news’ that Iran is trying to get nuclear weapons and that the Western powers are supposedly very upset about that. In consequence, there is much speculation that perhaps the US will attack Iran. However, President Bush is highly unpopular at home and abroad for launching a war against Iraq on a pretext that everybody now considers to have been a lie: the alleged presence of so-called ‘weapons of mass destruction’ (WMDs). And “the campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan have stretched the military capability of the world’s only superpower to the limit,”[2] disgruntling the soldiers, so the general circumstances do not appear conducive to Bush launching a new war, on the same pretext, when the previous military engagements have not even been completed.

The climate in the media this time around is also very different. Before the attack on Iraq, the media told the public that attacking Iraq might be unfair but -- crucially -- not too dangerous. We were told that there was insufficient evidence that Saddam Hussein really had WMDs. And he was not really a threat, even with WMDs, we were told, because he was already not in charge of much of his country, patrolled as it was by NATO. Moreover, he was letting the UN inspectors in, so why not just continue with the inspections? The Bush administration claimed that Saddam Hussein was in league with Al Qaeda, but the media consistently contradicted this, and told the public over and over again that there was no evidence to link Saddam Hussein with Al Qaeda. In sum, an attack on Iraq would be unfair and unnecessary, but it would not be too dangerous. True, some argued that attacking Iraq might lead to an increase in Islamist radicalism, but this was presented as a diffuse rather than a direct and immediate threat. By sharp contrast, the mass media is now telling the Western public that attacking Iran would represent a direct and immediate threat to them personally -- economic, terrorist, and military. Here follow some examples from last week.

On 12 February 2006 The Buffalo News wrote:

“...a Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll done in late January showed that 57 percent of Americans favored military action to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. It’s unclear whether pollsters asked those in favor if they were prepared to watch Iran wreck the world economy by withholding oil from the market and watching the price rise to $100 a barrel.”[3]

In other words, the 57% of Americans who favor an attack on Iran -- a slim majority -- are wrong because Iran might “wreck the world economy” by doubling oil prices if attacked.

And yet this is mild. A much bigger paper, The Boston Globe, tells its American readers that Iran might kill them if the US attacks Iran, and they assure us that this is the opinion of US intelligence and military strategists, no less:

“Iran is prepared to launch attacks using long-range missiles, secret commando units, and terrorist allies planted around the globe in retaliation for any strike on the country’s nuclear facilities, according to new US intelligence assessments and military specialists.

...military and intelligence analysts warn that Iran -- which a recent US intelligence report described as ‘more confident and assertive’ than it has been since the early days of the 1979 Islamic revolution -- could unleash reprisals across the region, and perhaps even inside the United States, if the hard-line regime came under attack.”[4]

Accordingly, the public is also being told that the US means to follow a more pragmatic and diplomatic approach this time around. Says The Daily Telegraph:

“...having achieved an early degree of consensus, the White House is determined to maintain a united international response in the hope that it might ultimately persuade the hard-line Iranian regime of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to come to its senses.”[5]

The US, in “consensus” with others, will generate an “international response” that will try to “persuade.” It is the only way because, as The Guardian explains,

“Iran knows its strength. The Iraq adventure has exposed the painful limits to force, and America can no longer make a credible threat of invasion: it has forfeited the power to frighten.”[5a]

But the best reasons to be skeptical that the US will attack Iran are not the above. In my view, the US ruling elite does not want to attack Iran now for the same reasons that it hasn’t wanted to attack Iran in the past: because the US ruling elite is allied with the Iranian elite against Israel.

___________________________________________________________

The true relation of geopolitical forces
___________________________________________________________

If you are a consumer of the Western mass media you will likely perceive the structure of geopolitical alliances in a completely different way: with the US supposedly allied with Israel against Iran. I think you should be skeptical of this model, and to motivate your skepticism I will present, from an awesome heap of data, just two revealing items: one to illustrate what I believe is the true relationship between the US and Iran, and another to illustrate the true relationship between the US and Israel (I will leave you to consult the detailed HIR investigations on these relationships if you find the two examples proffered insufficient). Then I will move on to explain what I think all this noise concerning Iran’s nuclear program is really about.


The true relationship between the US and Iran
________________________________________

Because the media steers your attention always to what public officials say in their diplomatic exchanges, many people have gotten the impression, since 1979, that the Islamist Iranian ruling elite and the US ruling elite are enemies. True, the Iranian Islamists helped oust the Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, and the shah had indeed been a repressive right-wing US puppet installed in power by a 1953 CIA coup.[6] It is true that Khomeini supporters in Iran denounced the brutal SAVAK,[6a] and true that, as The Washington Post says, the Ayatollah Khomeini himself “came to power denouncing the shah’s dreaded SAVAK secret service,” which the CIA had created for the shah.[7] Moreover, the new Iranian government, after the shah left but before Khomeini took completely over, indeed “promised to abolish SAVAK.”[8] Be that as it may, what I think matters most is that Khomeini, once in power, was not bothered in the least by the “very close ties that SAVAK, under the shah, [had] maintained with the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency.”[7] In fact, Khomeini was so unbothered by this that he turned SAVAK (i.e. the CIA), wholesale, into his repressive security service.[9] So Khomeini was an enemy of the US? On the contrary: Khomeini betrayed the Iranian revolution.

It is true, of course, that Khomeini began calling the United States ‘Great Satan’ in public and even seized hostages at the US embassy in Tehran (redeemed for an astonishing and, to the Iranian Islamists, quite convenient sum of US dollars)[10]; and it is true also that US officials reciprocated with counter-denunciations of the Iranian mullahs. The public rhetoric indeed was: ‘we are enemies.’ Moreover, Khomeini said aloud that he wasn’t interested in continuing the shah’s arms purchases from the US.[11] But, once again, I think it matters more that the secret behaviors of the US and Iran were just the opposite: throughout the Iran-Iraq war that began immediately after Khomeini rose to power, the Reagan administration sent billions of dollars in armament, every year, to the Iranian Islamists -- who paid for these weapons. This became part of the infamous ‘Iran-Contra’ scandal (also called ‘Iran-gate’) when made public.[12]

Once exposed, Reagan administration officials stammered that they had done it all to beg the Iranians for their influence on the Hezbollah terrorists in Lebanon, in the hopes that Hezbollah would let its handful of US hostages go. That is to say, the US ruling elite had been sending billions of dollars in military hardware, every year, for many years, to Iran, an Islamist and terrorist state that murdered its own teenagers in fanatical ‘human wave’ attacks against Iraqi artillery, because, US officials earnestly explained, they had been trying to free a few US citizens who were the hostages, in Lebanon, of a Lebanese terrorist organization.

This explanation was always a bit of a stretch, so I felt some relief when I found out that it couldn’t be true. As The New York Times has since explained, it was

“soon after taking office in 1981 [that] the Reagan Administration secretly and abruptly changed United States policy and allowed…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. . .”[13] (my emphasis)

In other words, since the arms shipments began before any hostages existed in Lebanon, the arms shipments cannot logically have had anything to do with releasing hostages in Lebanon. And, therefore, says The New York Times, “No American rationale for permitting covert arms sales to Iran could be established.” But aren’t we lacking a bit in imagination? If the US ruling elite was not arming the Iranians to the teeth for many years in order to release a handful of hostages in Lebanon (as it claimed when caught), then how about this hypothesis: the US ruling elite wanted Iran to win the Iran-Iraq war.

One might be tempted to object that this hypothesis is a bit too obvious, but in science this is not a valid objection.

For the sake of argument, what would this mean, geopolitically? To get a handle on that, we need to understand what was perceived to be at stake in the Iran-Iraq war. As The New Yorker’s Milton Viorst explained:

“At stake was whether the secular Baathism of Saddam [Hussein] or the radical Shiism of [the Ayatollah] Khomeini would prevail in Iraq, and perhaps in the Middle East.”[14]

So, if the US wanted Iran to win the Iran-Iraq war, then it wanted Iranian-style Islamism to spread in the Middle East. But would this make any sense? Well, it would certainly be consistent with other major foreign policy behaviors of the United States. For example, this is:

1) consistent with the Gulf War, which the US provoked to destroy Iraq after US strategists fretted out loud that, since Iran had lost the Iran-Iraq war (despite all the US help), it was imperative to strengthen Iran and contain Iraq[15]; and

2) consistent with the current US invasion of Iraq, which -- everybody seems agreed -- will turn Iraq into a de facto province of Iran once the American troops leave.[16]

My hypothesis is also consistent with Jared Israel’s well-documented and more general hypothesis that overall US policy in Asia has been to sponsor Islamist radicalism with the aim to destabilize US rivals in that part of the world.[17] More specifically, the view that the US wanted Islamist radicalism to win in the Iran-Iraq war is:

1) consistent with the US creation -- with the help of Pakistani and Saudi Arabian Islamists -- of the Islamist/terrorist force of the mujahedin (or mujahideen) in Afghanistan, to attack the Soviet Union[18];

2) consistent with US Pentagon-Iranian cooperation to import thousands of these same mujahedin to Bosnia to fight alongside Alija Izetbegovic against the Bosnian Serbs[19];

3) consistent with the fact that Alija Izetbegovic was an Islamist and terrorist, and a big fan of the Ayatollah Khomeini, creator of the Iranian Islamo-terrorist regime[19a]; and

4) consistent with the tight alliance over the years between the US and Saudi Arabia, a major sponsor of Islamist terror everywhere in Asia, and also the country that the US has armed more than any other in the world.[20]

My hypothesis is consistent with much else besides, and you may consult HIR’s in-depth investigation into the relationship between the US and Iran here:
http://www.hirhome.com/iraniraq/iraq-general-intro.htm

And yet despite all this evidence, which is publicly available, The New York Times ‘concludes’ that, since the absurd ‘arms for hostages’ explanation was false, we just cannot imagine why the US ruling elite would arm the Iranians… This can be topped, however. Just the other day, the British daily The Guardian explained the supposed Iranian-US enmity as follows: “Iran will never forgive the US for backing Iraq in the bloody eight-year Iran-Iraq war.”[21] So the fact that the US in fact backed Iran in that war (followed up by the US destruction of Iraq, an additional courtesy to Iran[22]) is simply denied -- just like that. You are supposed to treat US public statements -- (the US did say in public that it preferred an Iraqi victory) -- as the real data, paying zero attention to the actual behaviors of US policymakers.

The Guardian also 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?”

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.


The true relationship between the US and Israel
__________________________________________

In 1982, Israel invaded Lebanon because the PLO, from its bases there, was murdering Israeli civilians (in addition to terrorizing the Lebanese population). The Israeli operation was successful, but right as the Israelis were about to deal the PLO terrorists the final blow, the Reagan administration intervened to save the PLO from the Israelis, moreover providing this terrorist organization with a military escort to their new refuge -- in Tunis.[23]

Why? Because the US is an ally of Israel?

From Tunis the PLO was finding it very difficult to kill Israelis, so the PLO was in fact defeated, at this time. But once again the PLO’s problems were solved by the US when Bush Sr.’s administration threatened the Israelis for 8 months with the withdrawal of all economic aid unless they agreed to bring the PLO inside Israel, which the Israelis finally did when the Clinton administration continued these policies (known collectively as the Oslo ‘Peace’ Process).[24] This US bully diplomacy, which has allowed the PLO to kill many more Israelis than before, has increased to a high pitch in Bush Jr.’s administration, with the results that we can all see.

Now, would an ally of Israel force the Jewish state to accept as the government over the West Bank and Gaza Arabs an organization -- the PLO -- whose controlling core, Al Fatah, traces its roots to Adolf Hitler’s Final Solution,[25] and whose founding (and still current) charter states that its purpose is the extermination of the Israeli Jews?[26]

No. An ally would not.

My hypothesis that the US is not an ally of Israel is consistent with sundry other details, such as the fact that, as the Oslo ‘Peace’ Process began in 1994, the CIA was training the PLO, even though the PLO was that very minute explaining in public, in English, to the Western press, that it was going to be killing Israeli civilians (and any Arabs who didn’t want to kill Jews).[27] My hypothesis is consistent with much else besides, which you may verify by consulting HIR’s in-depth investigation into the US-Israel relationship here:
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/hirally.htm


The impact of the media
_____________________

Most people do not understand the true arrangement of geopolitical forces because the Western mass media generally portrays the US as an enemy of Iran and a friend of Israel. This is in direct contradiction to the easily documented behavioral facts, and yet a perfect echo of what US government officials say in their statements to the public. In other words, the media interprets the pattern of geopolitical alliances precisely as US government propagandists also do. This naturally suggests that the Western mass media and the US government are controlled by the same interests. HIR has produced many demonstrations supporting this but perhaps the most useful to a newcomer will be the following:
http://www.hirhome.com/national-security.htm

But if the media is dishing out propaganda, is it still possible to figure out what is going on? It is, because you can begin reading the news with the goal of understanding not what is being ‘reported,’ but what is being prepared.

For example, take Raymond McGovern.

___________________________________________________________

Raymond McGovern: useful if you understand who he is (CIA)
___________________________________________________________

In the year 2002 Raymond McGovern published editorials in USA Today, The Christian Science Monitor, USA Today again, The Boston Globe, The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, and The Washington Post.[27a] It is just one year, and just one category of media exposure: I give it to you as an example. He is everywhere. In addition to publishing him with gusto, the media sits ‘Ray’ McGovern down for interviews left and right, using him also as a source on all matters having to do with intelligence and foreign policy. Oh, and if Raymond McGovern ever says anything in public against the Bush administration, he is immediately quoted, for he is “outspoken Bush critic Ray McGovern.”[27b] To get a better sense for the sheer statistical breadth of McGovern's astonishing media exposure, consult the following HIR investigation:
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/mprot2.htm

Either Raymond McGovern is uncommonly brilliant or he has good connections.

As it turns out, “Ray McGovern [is] a 27-year veteran of the CIA’s clandestine service,”[27c] the CIA outfit in charge of propaganda activities, training of covert 'paramilitary' forces, and such.[27d] The CIA is allowed by the National Security Act of 1947 to use the clandestine service for

“activity or activities of the United States Government to influence political, economic, or military conditions abroad, where it is intended that the role of the United States Government will not be apparent or acknowledged publicly…”[27e]

In other words, those who work for the clandestine service are professionally required to lie in order “to influence political, economic, or military conditions abroad.” You will therefore not be surprised to learn that a different HIR investigation has documented Raymond McGovern to be a spectacular liar:
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/mprot3.htm

And another HIR investigation has shown that Raymond McGovern has a knack for spreading particularly big lies against Israel and in favor of Israel’s terrorist enemies:
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/mprot5.htm

As it turns out, Raymond McGovern has become a regular contributor at Truthout, a website flying under a ‘leftist’ banner and which therefore incessantly attacks Bush. This makes it a natural home for a Bush ‘opponent,’ and particularly for one who specializes in attacks against Israel, given the concerted effort to associate attacks against the Jewish state with ‘the left,’ as they still call it.

This is enough for us to ask the question: Given that those who work for the CIA's ‘clandestine service’ are tasked with “influenc[ing] political, economic, or military conditions abroad,” but taking care that “the role of the United States Government will not be apparent or acknowledged publicly,” isn't it possible that Raymond McGovern's attacks against Israel are part of a covert US policy? Isn't it possible that he is still working for the clandestine service, despite the fact that he says he retired? After all, we have shown that he is a liar, so why should we automatically believe him when he says that he no longer works for the CIA? Couldn't he be merely posing as a Bush ‘opponent’ in the media, the better to undermine Israel among ‘leftists’?

He certainly looks the part.

Under the lens of this hypothesis, whatever Raymond McGovern says about the dispute over Iran’s nuclear program is bound to be interesting. Happily, McGovern just published a piece on the Truthout website with the title “Juggernaut Gathering Momentum, Headed for Iran.”[27f] In it, McGovern argues that Iran has a right to get nukes because it is threatened by the US and Israel; so, in order to stop the Iranian nuclear program, McGovern recommends that the Israeli nuclear program be abolished.

Interesting.

Below I analyze both McGovern’s premise and his recommendation, and then I show you how common his views are in the mass media.

_____________________________________________________

 

Raymond McGovern says that Iran has a right to get nuclear weapons
___________________________________________________________

In his Truthout piece, McGovern says:

“Iran signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty and insists (correctly) that the treaty assures signatories the right to pursue nuclear programs for peaceful use. And when Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice claims, as she did last month, ‘There is simply no peaceful rationale for the Iranian regime to resume uranium enrichment,’ she is being, well, disingenuous again.”

But McGovern does not stop at saying that Iran has a right to peaceful nuclear technology. He also defends Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weaponry. His arguments are two-fold: (1) Iran is supposedly in danger from the United States, and (2) Iran is supposedly in danger from Israel.


The US threatens Iran, according to McGovern
________________________________________

In his Truthout piece, McGovern says:

“It is altogether reasonable to expect that Iran’s leaders want to have a nuclear weapons capability as well, and that they plan to use their nuclear program to acquire one. From their perspective, they would be fools not to. Iran is one of three countries earning the ‘axis-of-evil’ sobriquet from President Bush and it has watched what happened to Iraq, which had no nuclear weapons, as well as what did not happen to North Korea, which does have them.”

In other words, it is “altogether reasonable” that Iran get nuclear weapons because Iran, McGovern suggests, is at risk from the United States.

McGovern’s position here is awkward, for two reasons.

The first is that the entire history of the US-Iran relationship has to do with the US arming to the teeth the Iranian ruling elite. We’ve seen above the ‘Iran-Contra’ example, when the Reagan administration publicly claimed to oppose the Iranian Islamists but secretly sent them billions of dollars in armament, every year, throughout the Iran-Iraq war. The behavioral facts do not suggest that the Iranian Islamists have ever been held in disfavor by US policymakers.

The second awkwardness in McGovern’s position is arguably greater. Right as the Reagan administration was illegally arming the radical Iranian Islamists in the Iran-Iraq war, guess who was the Reagan administration’s ‘All Intelligence Agent’? No! Yes: Raymond McGovern.

“Ray McGovern...served as the ‘All Intelligence Agent’ during the Reagan administration. He was responsible for briefing the President, the Vice President, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Cabinet and National Security Advisor.”[28]

So here is the question: Given that McGovern and other US officials were telling us in the 1980s, though it wasn’t true, that the US and Iranian ruling elites were enemies, if Raymond McGovern now tells you, again, that the US and Iranian ruling elites are supposedly enemies, should you believe him?

Or I can ask it like this: Should you believe “Ray McGovern, a 27-year veteran of the CIA’s clandestine service”[29] -- in other words, a professional liar -- when he tells you for the second time something that was a spectacular lie (and a crime) the first time?

Wouldn’t you have to be what businesspeople call ‘a sucker’?


Israel threatens Iran, according to McGovern
_______________________________________

Under the hypothesis that Raymond McGovern is an anti-Israeli propagandist we would not be surprised to find him saying something like this:

“And Iran’s rival Israel, which has not signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty but somehow escapes widespread opprobrium, has a formidable nuclear arsenal cum delivery systems.”

Translation: “And since Israel is a danger to Iran, how come nobody complains that Israel has not signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty and has a formidable nuclear arsenal?”

Then McGovern adds the following:

“Israeli threats to destroy Iranian nuclear facilities simply provide additional incentive to Tehran to bury and harden them against the kind of Israeli air attack that destroyed the Iraqi nuclear facility at Osirak in 1981.”

Translation: “Since Israel is threatening Iran, small wonder that the Iranians are getting nuclear weapons!”

I will call to your attention that it is the president of Iran, as you may recall, who’s been saying publicly that Israel should be “wiped off the map” -- not vice versa.[34] What Israel has said -- even according to McGovern, above -- is that it will merely shoot to disarm its genocidal enemy, which is therefore the mildest possible self-defense against the biggest possible threat. And yet McGovern interprets this as Israel threatening Iran, by way of explaining that Iran therefore should be allowed the very nuclear weapons with which it might wipe Israel off the map.

In light of Raymond McGovern's position, let us examine a bit more carefully this question:

_____________________________________________________

 

Is Raymond McGovern an anti-Israeli propagandist?
___________________________________________________________

In his Truthout piece, Raymond McGovern says that Israel has a “policy of massive -- often disproportionate -- retaliation against the Arabs.” I think this is enough to establish that he is an anti-Israeli propagandist. But if this is not immediately obvious, then let me take you on a short stroll so that you can see precisely why.

Israel is a country surrounded by Arab states pledged to destroy it, and these states have made good on their word by launching genocidal wars.[31] In these conflicts Israel has actually returned land that its genocidal enemies lost in battle, something no victorious victim of aggression had ever done in interstate warfare before. Why this remarkable behavior? Because the Israelis were hoping in this manner to buy a promise of peace from these states. It is true that after the 1967 Six Day War Israel retained the West Bank and Gaza, but this is because the Arab states refused to accept these territories back (which they had previously held illegally) if this meant they had to promise never again to attempt the extermination of the Israeli Jews![32] And then, in the early 1990s, Israel did the unbelievable: it allowed the PLO into the West Bank and Gaza, setting in motion the ‘Oslo process,’ ever since which date Israel has given the PLO more and more power over the Arab population. But the PLO does not flinch from murdering children in the street, or from sending their own children -- even girls -- to blow themselves up in order to do it. In particular, the PLO is fond of killing Jews.

Why in the world did the Israelis bring such people into the Jewish state? Because Israeli leaders lied to the Israeli people, telling them that the PLO was interested in a piece of land, and therefore that giving land to the PLO would end the killings of Jews. Trusting in hope, rather than reason, the Israeli Jews accepted an argument that amounted to saying the following: that an antisemitic terrorist organization will kill fewer Jews it if is made more powerful and brought closer to its Jewish targets.

But…why did the Israelis believe any such absurdity from their leaders’ lips?

Part of the reason is that hordes of Israeli journalists and intellectuals, as well as Jewish journalists and intellectuals in the Diaspora, have always managed to find the argument that makes ‘the Jews’ once again to blame every time another Arab terrorist kills another innocent Jew. Such arguments, believe it or not, find an echo among many ordinary Israeli Jews, in part because the ethical culture of Judaism conditions Jews to think that self-criticism is always virtuous, so if they are blaming themselves surely they must be acting out of a sense of compassion and justice, and surely the other side, after noticing that the Jews are trying to be nice, will reach Enlightenment and stop all the killing. Hence: ‘land for peace.’ Isn’t it obvious that this will work?

Alas...! The less rosy truth is that those Israelis who supported the ‘Oslo process’ deluded themselves. First, because -- contrary to what they like to think -- they really did not show compassion for the West Bank and Gaza Arabs over whom they empowered the PLO thugs, who, when they are not extorting or murdering these Arabs, or sending them to blow themselves up, daily bludgeon them with antisemitism[32a]; and second, because Oslo supporters certainly did not show any compassion for the Jewish settlers in the West Bank and Gaza. Pro-Oslo Israelis have tried hard to convince themselves that the Jewish settlers, as opposed to the antisemitic murderers who kill them, are the enemies of peace! But what makes the delusions in the pro-Oslo camp especially amazing is that these ‘leftist,’ ‘pro-peace’ Israelis have not been murdering reason to serve their own selves; on the contrary, they have put themselves in great peril. Partly out of pride for their own ethics, and partly disguising their own antisemitism (Jewish 'self-hatred') as ethical self-criticism, many Israelis collectively bent over backwards to accommodate those who wish to destroy them, twisting the humanitarian impulse into an abrogation of self-defense: a kind of self-immolation that has begun with the sacrifice of the settlers.

Such pathologies of reasoning should be criticized, as Kenneth Levin has intelligently done, because the Jews naturally have a right to defend themselves (and certainly from terrorists who wish to exterminate the Jewish people...).[32b] But Raymond McGovern, you see, puts a different spin on things. His criticism of the Jewish state is that, according to him, Israel supposedly has a “policy of massive -- often disproportionate -- retaliation against the Arabs.” He cannot be saying this out of ignorance, because McGovern worked at least 27 years for US Intelligence and moreover he is sometimes introduced as “Ray McGovern, former CIA chief for the Middle East.”[33] So unless he is a complete moron it appears that he wants to prevent you from thinking. This is why I think that Raymond McGovern is an anti-Israeli propagandist.

Now, a historian needs a working hypothesis for why each document he examines was produced, in order to interpret it.[29a] Here, we need a hypothesis that will explain why Raymond McGovern’s Truthout article exists. For example:

Given

1) that Raymond McGovern used to work for the CIA clandestine service, whose job in part is to produce propaganda that will undermine other countries but that will appear not to come from the US government; and

2) that Raymond McGovern sounds so much like an anti-Israeli propagandist;

then

Hypothesis: Perhaps Raymond McGovern still works for the CIA, and he is being deployed in the controlled media to teach the public that it is fair for Iran to have nukes because it is supposedly threatened by Israel. In this way, the diplomatic answer to the problem will be to strip Israel of its nukes, so that Iran is no longer afraid, we will be told, thus removing any Iranian need for nuclear weapons.

HIR has documented that the mass media consistently tells people that any allegation that the ruling elite is engaging in nasty secret activities to the detriment of the people is a ‘conspiracy theory,’ and therefore automatically without merit -- in fact, ‘conspiracy theories’ aren't merely wrong, but also stupid and absurd (an examination of the evidence is, in consequence, laughably superfluous).[30] If you have been properly trained by this regime of repetition, the above hypothesis will appear -- quite in spite of my analysis -- too far-fetched to consider, leaving you with the only alternative on offer: that Raymond McGovern is an honest, principled Bush opponent, and a US patriot, because that is what he says he is (why else would the media seek him so much if he were not the real McCoy?). This will force you to say that the ‘All Intelligence Agent’ on watch while US Intelligence secretly armed an official enemy, Iran, is...an honest patriot. But, Alas..., you have nowhere else to go, because the alternative is a ‘conspiracy theory.’

My own view is as follows. If the media, repeating what US military and intelligence officials say, is telling the public that attacking Iran is very dangerous, and if ‘former CIA’ officials are simultaneously telling the public that Iran has a right to get nukes so long as it is supposedly threatened by Israel, it does not appear that a war against Iran over its nuclear program is what is being prepared. What this seems to be preparing, rather, is a diplomatic process that will offer the dismantling of Israel’s nuclear deterrent in exchange for a halt to Iran’s nuclear program, there to produce a ‘nuclear free Middle East.’

Lo and behold, this is precisely what Raymond McGovern appears to propose. I turn to this next.

___________________________________________________________

Says Raymond McGovern: destroy Israel’s nuclear program; buy a “nuclear-free zone in the Middle East”
___________________________________________________________

How about a nuclear-free zone in the Middle East? Who, according to McGovern, might be the obstacle to this dream of peace?

“Israeli leaders seem allergic to the thought that other countries in the region might be able to break its nuclear monopoly and they react neuralgically to proposals for a nuclear-free zone in the Middle East.”

The Israelis, says McGovern, desire neither nuclear parity nor a nuclear-free zone in the Middle East because they want to keep their “nuclear monopoly” (this has nothing to do, in other words, with the recurrent Muslim threats to destroy Israel).

McGovern reports that the US is supposedly “bending over backward” to support Israel. Here is what he cites in evidence:

“...the US delegation to the IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency] delayed the proceedings for a day in a futile attempt to delete from Sunday’s report language calling for such a [nuclear-free] zone. The final report called for a ‘Middle East free of weapons of mass destruction.’ This is the first time a link has been made, however implicitly, between the Iranian and Israeli nuclear programs.”

What Raymond McGovern refers to above is serious business. The IAEA has referred the matter of Iran's nukes to the UN Security Council, the world's top enforcer. And what the UN Security Council has been officially asked to enforce is a ‘Middle East free of weapons of mass destruction,’ which, as McGovern explains, is synonymous with stripping Israel of its nuclear arsenal.

Now, the United States of America is the greatest superpower in history. If the United States ruling elite is keen on something, it will get its way. For example, the US ruling elite can even launch wars of aggression without UN Security Council approval, and yet bring in the UN post facto to legitimize what it did, as happened in the case of Yugoslavia. The US ruling elite can also get the UN Security Council to rubber stamp an invasion of Iraq, with or without actual weapons of mass destruction to show. This is because the US is the big fish at the UN Security Council, as it is also the big fish at the IAEA -- because the US is the biggest superpower in history. So if this formidable, awesome, unstoppable power, the United States of America, was “bending over backwards” to help the Israelis, as McGovern claims, how come the effect was so minor (“delayed the proceedings for a day”) and the effort “futile”? Why did a diplomatic move get made towards dismantlement of Israel's indispensable nuclear deterrent?

__________________________________________________________

The IAEA calls for a 'nuclear free Middle East.' The media follows McGovern in applauding this, and so does...the Israeli government!
__________________________________________________________

The Guardian wrote this on 7 February:

“On the face of it, Iran has every reason to feel insecure. While America occupies two of Iran’s neighbors and Israel’s nuclear weapons point at Tehran, paranoia seems as justified as it is dangerous.”[35]

It makes sense for Iran to see itself at risk from the US and Israel. This is also what Raymond McGovern is selling. We shouldn't be surprised: as you may recall, it was The Guardian who explained the supposed enmity between the US and Iranian elites as resulting from the US supposedly having backed Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war, something that did not happen.

Thomas Friedman, writing in The New York Times, wrote the following on 10 February:

“If Iran develops a nuclear bomb, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and possibly other Sunni Arab states are bound to follow. The Sunni Arabs can overlook Israel’s bomb, but they will never stand for the Persian Shiites having a bomb and them not. That’s about brothers with a centuries-old rivalry. And if the Arab world starts to go nuclear, then you will see the crumbling of the whole global nuclear nonproliferation regime.”[36]

Iran getting nukes means that everybody will get nukes, he says. Friedman’s focus is clearly on the proliferation issue, not on Iran per se. This agrees with McGovern’s frame, which is to make arguments about the importance of keeping the Middle East region nuclear-free. Friedman hasn’t yet recommended stripping Israel of its nuclear deterrent, but that may come in due course. After all, from his perch as “foreign affairs columnist” at The New York Times, Friedman has been a sometimes passionate apologist for Israel’s enemies -- for example, he defended both Mahmoud Abbas and Muhammad Dahlan as “responsible Palestinians” (i.e. 'moderates'), even though Abbas is who invented the strategy of talking ‘peace’ in order to prepare the Israelis for slaughter, and even though Dahlan used his CIA training to kill innocent Jews and any Arabs opposed to the PLO.[37] Friedman has also written an entire book -- From Beirut to Jerusalem -- painting the Israelis as the supposed bad guys in the Middle East conflict.

But if The New York Times is hesitating a bit, The Irish Times has certainly plunged ahead. As Tom Wright complained in a rebuttal editorial on 14 February,

“Over the past couple of weeks The Irish Times has published a number of opinion articles that directly link the problem of Iran’s nuclear programme to the fact that Israel has nuclear weapons.

Vincent Browne (February 1st) wrote, ‘So what do we expect? If Israel, a declared enemy of Iran, has nuclear weapons, the only effective deterrent against Israel using such weapons against Iran and its allies is to acquire nuclear weapons itself.’ For Browne, the West should keep its ‘hands off Iran’ until Israel, which he continues to see as an illegitimate state, is dealt with first.

Similarly, according to Tariq Ali (February 3rd), ‘The Iranian ‘crisis’ of today has been carefully manufactured. Iran has as much right to nuclear weapons as any of the existing nuclear states. Why is Israel’s 200-bomb arsenal acceptable? India and Pakistan are also fine. What all three states share in common is loyalty to the (American) empire.’

Even the eminently more reasonable Garret FitzGerald (January 28th) suggested the roots of the Iranian problem lie in the failure of the US to prevent Israel going nuclear in the 1960s.”[38]

A barrage.

The Toronto Star puts it like this:

“That Iran’s nuclear research program must come back under UN control goes without saying. But for that country’s pride, some counter-weight has to be offered… Israel’s nuclear program is completely unsupervised by the UN.”[39]

It appears, then, that my prediction -- which is that the ‘Iranian nuclear crisis’ will be used to deprive Israel of its nuclear deterrent in order, ostensibly, to create a ‘nuclear-free’ Middle East -- is not outlandish. Opposition to such a policy could certainly prevent it from happening, but it is not clear where such opposition will come from, given that the ‘Israeli government’ has already endorsed this approach.

Believe it or not.

The Australian reports that “Israeli officials were taken aback by the approval of a clause in the IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency] document implying dismantlement of Israel’s nuclear arsenal.” They “were taken aback,” were they? But then they are serious about tradition, because Israeli leaders have a long tradition of endorsing any policy that will endanger Jewish lives. And look: “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.”[40]


_____________________________________________________

But the US might yet attack Iran
_____________________________________________________

If, surprisingly, the US should attack Iran, I predict that a Muslim attack on Israel will quickly follow. You will remember that when the US attacked Iraq in the Gulf War, it was Israel that Iraq retaliated against, launching rockets against Israeli civilians. Israel has again been blamed -- including all over the Western media -- for the ongoing US attack against Iraq. This is quite despite the fact that the US attack on Iraq will turn this country into Iran’s westernmost province, almost bordering with Israel, even as nuclear-seeking Iran is calling for the extermination of the Israeli Jews. How did Israel benefit?

Israel’s nuclear deterrent is of no use against an attack from its borders, because it is one of the tiniest states in the world and you cannot very well throw a nuclear bomb if it is going to explode next to your own house. So, depending on how urgent the US ruling elite perceives the destruction of Israel to be, they might launch an attack against Iran to produce a response attack against Israel that will immediately be portrayed as an unfortunate ‘unintended consequence.’ Then they will build a new Holocaust Museum and solemnly declare: “never again.”

The remaining Jews in the Diaspora will be the most vulnerable Jews in history.

http://www.hirhome.com/logo-HiR.gif

___________________________________________________________

 

Footnotes and Further Reading
___________________________________________________________

[1] Nuclear spectre haunts world,  The Toronto Star, February 7, 2006 Tuesday, OPINION; Pg. A17, 619 words

[2] Bush knows that America needs its friends this time As the showdown develops, the White House is going out of its way to keep its Western allies on side, reports Con Coughlin in Washington,  The Daily Telegraph (LONDON), February 12, 2006 Sunday, NEWS; IRAN CRISIS; Pg. 30, 638 words, Con Coughlin

[3] Neo-conservatism: New York's gift to Republicans; A liberal state provides fertile ground for the most significant counter-culture philosophy of the last 25 years,  Buffalo News (New York), February 12, 2006 Sunday,  FINAL EDITION, VIEWPOINTS; Pg. H1, 2375 words, By Patrick Reddy - SPECIAL TO THE NEWS

[4] IRAN IS PREPARED TO RETALIATE, EXPERTS WARN,  The Boston Globe, February 12, 2006 Sunday,  THIRD EDITION, NATIONAL/FOREIGN; Pg. A1, 1175 words,  BY BRYAN BENDER, GLOBE STAFF

[5] Bush knows that America needs its friends this time As the showdown develops, the White House is going out of its way to keep its Western allies on side, reports Con Coughlin in Washington,  The Daily Telegraph (LONDON), February 12, 2006 Sunday, NEWS; IRAN CRISIS; Pg. 30, 638 words, Con Coughlin

[5a] 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

[6] "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

[6a] Before Khomeini came to power, in 1978, The Washington Post wrote that  “More than 10,000 persons gathered at the university to demand the government's resignation and shout support for exiled religious leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. ... SAVAK has been one of the key targets of the protestors.” Khomeini was clearly the flag for the anti-shah, anti-SAVAK movement.

SOURCE: 8 More Die in Continuing Iranian Violence, The Washington Post, October 30, 1978, Monday, Final Edition, First Section; Around the World; A17, 294 words, From news services and staff reports, TEHRAN

[7] Khomeini Is Reported to Have a SAVAK of His Own; Khomeini Reported to Have Own SAVAK-Style Agency, The Washington Post, June 7, 1980, Saturday, Final Edition, First Section; A1, 1706 words, By Michael Getler, Washington Post Staff Writer

[8] “Never once mentioning the shah by name, the 63-year-old prime minister confirmed that his government will not sell oil to Israel and South Africa and promised to abolish SAVAK, the much-feard secret police. He said as prime minister he will support the "legitimate rights" of the Palestinians and in general struck a nonaligned, pro-Islamic stance rather than the militantly pro-Western tilt of the shah.

...The promise to do away with SAVAK, infamous for use of torture and arbitrary imprisonment, was central to Bakhtiar’s 20-minute address in the ornate turn-of-the-century majlis, or lower house of parliament. He promised that a special commission will be named to investigate abuses by SAVAK agents.”

SOURCE: U.S. Dismantling Intelligence Gear, Storing It in Iran; New Prime Minister Pledges Drastic Shift; Iranian Leader Pledges to Halt Abuse by Police, The Washington Post,  January 12, 1979, Friday, Final Edition,  First Section; A1, 952 words,  By Jonathan C. Randal, Washington Post Foreign Service,  TEHRAN, Jan. 11, 1979

[9] “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 February 2006; by Francisco Gil-White
http://www.hirhome.com/iraniraq/savak.htm

[10] To read about Khomeini’s seizure of hostages at the US Embassy in Tehran, and what this reveals about the real relationship between Khomeini and the US ruling elite, visit:

“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

[11] “Khomeini is opposed to any new arms purchases, a multi-billion-dollar source of income for the United States.”

SOURCE: Exile Leader Shifts View On U.S.-Iran Ties; Iranian Exile Leader Shifts Stance on U.S., The Washington Post,  January 2, 1979, Tuesday, Final Edition,  First Section; A1, 720 words,  By Jonathan C. Randal, Washington Post Foreign Service,  NEAUPHLE LE CHATEAU, France, Jan. 1, 1979

[12] "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 December 2005; by Francisco Gil-White
http://www.hirhome.com/iraniraq/gulfwar.htm

NOTE: The Iran-Iraq war is covered in the section titled: "The suspicious prelude to the 1991 Gulf War: Khomeini, the Iran-Iraq War, and the Iran-Contra affair.
http://www.hirhome.com/iraniraq/gulfwar.htm#prelude

[13] 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

[14] Viorst M. 1994. Sandcastles: The Arabs in search of the modern world. New York: Alfred A. Knopf (p.41) [Much of this book first appeared in The New Yorker.]

[15] “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 December 2005; by Francisco Gil-White
http://www.hirhome.com/iraniraq/gulfwar.htm

[16] Notice how matter-of-factly The Guardian puts it:

“Iran is the true winner of that war [the US invasion of Iraq]. 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…”

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

If you would like to read more on why the consequence of the US invasion of Iraq will be to give Iraq to Iran, visit:

“BUSH JR.'S WAR ON IRAQ: A general introduction”; Historical and Investigative Research; 1 December 2005; by Francisco Gil-White
http://www.hirhome.com/iraniraq/iraq-general-intro.htm

[17] Behind US actions, a semi-covert strategy of promoting Islamism:
http://emperors-clothes.com/iraq-iran.htm#2

[18] Two revealing pieces:

1) “Ex-Security Chief Brzezinski's Interview makes clear: The Muslim Terrorist Apparatus was Created by US Intelligence as a Geopolitical Weapon”; Le Nouvel Observateur's Interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Jimmy Carter's National Security Adviser, Published 15-21 January 1998; Translated by Jean Martineau; comments by Jared Israel; Emperor’s Clothes; 6 September 2004.
http://www.tenc.net/interviews/brz.htm

2) “The Jihad Schoolbook Scandal...Why has the US been Shipping Muslim Extremist Schoolbooks into Afghanistan...for 20 Years? And why is President Bush hiding it?”; Emperor’s Clothes; 9 April 2002; by Jared Israel
http://emperors-clothes.com/articles/jared/jihad.htm

3) From U.S., the ABC's of Jihad; Violent Soviet-Era Textbooks Complicate Afghan Education Efforts,  The Washington Post, March 23, 2002 Saturday,  Final Edition, A SECTION; Pg. A01, 1346 words, Joe Stephens and David B. Ottaway, Washington Post Staff Writers
http://emperors-clothes.com/news/abc.htm

[19] “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

[19a] "WHAT REALLY HAPPENED IN BOSNIA?: Were the Serbs the criminal aggressors, as the official story claims, or were they the victims?"; Historical and Investigative Research; 19 August 2005; by Francisco Gil-White
www.ihrhome.com/yugo/ihralija1.htm

[20] THE ARMING OF SAUDI ARABIA; Transcript of FRONTLINE PBS Show #1112; Air Date: February 16, 1993
http://emperors-clothes.com/news/arming-i.htm

[21] 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

[22] "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 December 2005; by Francisco Gil-White
http://www.hirhome.com/iraniraq/gulfwar.htm

[23] “In 1982 the US military rushed into Lebanon to protect the PLO from the Israelis”; from IS THE US AN ALLY OF ISRAEL: A CHRONOLOGICAL LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE; Historical and Investigative Research; by Francisco Gil-White.
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/hirally2.htm#1982

[24] “In 1991, Bush Sr.'s administration forced Israel to participate in the Oslo process, which brought the PLO into the West Bank and Gaza”; from IS THE US AN ALLY OF ISRAEL: A CHRONOLOGICAL LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE; Historical and Investigative Research; by Francisco Gil-White.
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/hirally2.htm#1991

[25] The most complete documentation on this is here:

“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

Some of this material was originally published here:

“Anti-Semitism, Misinformation, And The Whitewashing Of The Palestinian Leadership”; Israel National News; May 26, '03 / 24 Iyar 5763; by Francisco J. Gil-White
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/article.php3?id=2405

[26] “Article 9…said that ‘armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine.’ Article 15 said it is ‘a national duty to repulse the Zionist imperialist invasion from the great Arab homeland and to purge the Zionist presence from Palestine.’ Article 22 declared that ‘the liberation of Palestine will liquidate the Zionist and imperialist presence and bring about the stabilization of peace in the Middle East.’”

TRANSLATION BY: The Associated Press,  December 15, 1998, Tuesday, AM cycle,  International News,  1070 words,  Clinton meets with Netanyahu, Arafat, appeals for progress,  By TERENCE HUNT, AP White House Correspondent,  EREZ CROSSING, Gaza Strip

The talk of ‘purging’ and ‘liquidating’ a ‘presence,’ and the insistence on violence as the “only way to liberate Palestine” (!) makes it clear that the PLO’s founding goal was -- and remains -- genocide.

[27] “In 1994 Yasser Arafat was given a Nobel Peace Prize, and the CIA trained the PLO, even though Arafat’s henchmen were saying in public, this very year, that they would use their training to oppress Arabs and kill Jews”; from IS THE US AN ALLY OF ISRAEL?: A Chronological Look at the Evidence; Historical and Investigative Research; by Francisco Gil-White
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/hirally2.htm#1994

[27a] Congress can't fix fractured intelligence, USA TODAY, May 22, 2002, Wednesday,, FINAL EDITION, NEWS;, Pg. 10A, 488 words

Protecting the homeland: Don't jeopardize intelligence links, Christian Science Monitor (Boston, MA), July 25, 2002, Thursday, OPINION; Pg. 09, 697 words, Ray McGovern, WASHINGTON

Appeasement wrong policy toward Iraq, USA TODAY, September 12, 2002, Thursday,, FINAL EDITION, NEWS;, Pg. 12A, 615 words

RAY MCGOVERN Ray McGovern, a CIA analyst from 1964-90, is now co-director of the Servant Leadership School, an inner-city outreach ministry in Washington.; HOW 'INTELLIGENCE' NOW SERVES THE DEFENSE DEPT., The Boston Globe, September 29, 2002, Sunday, ,THIRD EDITION, Pg. D11, 812 words, BY RAY MCGOVERN

The best intelligence? CIA, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel (Wisconsin), November 22, 2002 Friday, FINAL EDITION, Pg. 19A, 811 words, RAY MCGOVERN

President Bush's Selection of Henry Kissinger,  The Washington Post, December 2, 2002 Monday,  Final Edition, EDITORIAL; Pg. A20, 343 words

[27b] A CONSUMMATE BUREAUCRAT ADEPT AT CURRYING FAVOUR, The Independent (London), June 4, 2004, Friday, First Edition; NEWS; Pg. 4, 658 words, ANDREW GUMBEL IN LOS ANGELES

[27c] US INTELLIGENCE SHAKE-UP MEETS GROWING CRITICISM, The Boston Globe, January 2, 2005, Sunday,  THIRD EDITION, Pg. A1, 1016 words, By Bryan Bender, Globe Staff

[27d] “[The Central Intelligence Agency’s] Directorate of Operations, the agency’s clandestine service. . ., manages the agency’s counterterrorism center, espionage and paramilitary operations.”

SOURCE: The Washington Post,  August 09, 2002, Friday, Final Edition,  A SECTION; Pg. A01,  2035 words,  The Slowly Changing Face of the CIA Spy; Recruits Eager to Fight Terror Are Flooding In, but Few Look the Part,  Dana Priest, Washington Post Staff Writer.

[27e] National Security Act; Title V; SEC. 503 (e).

For the Full text of the National Security Act, visit:
http://www.intelligence.gov/0-natsecact_1947.shtml
or
http://www.hirhome.com/nat_sec_act.htm

Either link will work just fine.

To read an analysis of what the National Security act did to US democracy, visit:

"Did the National Security Act of 1947 destroy freedom of the press?: The red pill..."; Historical and Investigative Research; 3 January 2006; by Francisco Gil-White
http://www.hirhome.com/national-security.htm

[27f] "Juggernaut Gathering Momentum, Headed for Iran";
By Ray McGovern; t r u t h o u t | Perspective; Monday 06 February 2006.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/020606A.shtml

[28] Webactive.com calls itself “The Source for Progressive Streaming Media.” And what is progressive these days? Former CIA officials. Here is their blurb for 2 July 2003:
http://www.webactive.com/page/148

[ NOTE 04/17/2010: The Webactive page no longer exists. The same description of Ray McGovern appeared on Pacific Radio, and we took the Google cache of that page:
http://www.hirhome.com/iraniraq/mcgovern.htm ]

Veteran Intelligence Professional Ray McGovern: Bush administration slanted intelligence info prior to Iraq war (Audio)

As more and more US troops die in Iraq each day, the U.S. Congress, in closed door sessions, is examining the question of whether the Bush administration used undue influence over the intelligence community to slant intelligence information to support invading Iraq.

Ray McGovern was a member of the CIA for 27 years and he served as the “All Intelligence Agent” during the Reagan administration. He was responsible for briefing the President, the Vice President, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Cabinet and National Security Advisor. He’s now part of a group of former intelligence agents who are so dismayed with the intelligence used to support going to war against Iraq that they formed a group called Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity or VIPS.

In this commentary for Peace Watch Ray McGovern points to an unsual pattern on the part of Vice President Dick Cheney to visit the CIA headquarters, which he did 27 times prior to the invasion.

* Ray McGovern, spokesperson for Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity.

[29] US INTELLIGENCE SHAKE-UP MEETS GROWING CRITICISM, The Boston Globe, January 2, 2005, Sunday,  THIRD EDITION, Pg. A1, 1016 words, By Bryan Bender, Globe Staff

[29a] "About the HIR method"; Historical and Investigative Research; 17 December 2005; by Francisco Gil-White
http://www.hirhome.com/method.htm

[30] “Is this website an example of 'conspiracy theory'?”; Historical and Investigative Research; 4 October 2003; by Francisco Gil-White
http://www.hirhome.com/conspiracy.htm

[31] The state of Israel was created legally in 1947 by a vote at the UN. An Arab state in the other half of what had been British Mandate ‘Palestine’ was also created, but the Arabs considered the existence of a Jewish state in any shape or form simply too offensive, and so they launched a combined Arab attack against Israel in 1948. Azzam Pasha, Secretary General of the Arab League, announced publicly, and proudly, what the war would be about:

“This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades.”

Mind you, the Holocaust had just ended. To read more about this, and see the documentation, visit:

“Forced by external circumstances, the US government gave lukewarm support to the creation of the State of Israel in 1947. But then it reversed itself and implemented policies designed to destroy Israel.”; from “Is the US an Ally of Israel?: A Chronological Look at the Evidence”; Historical and Investigative Research; by Francisco Gil-White
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/hirally.htm#1947

For another example, Nasser announced his genocidal intent right before the 1967 Six Day War. To read about this, visit:

“Although Israel suffered terrorist attacks from its Arab neighbors during the years 1964-1967, when they staged a full-scale military provocation, the US refused to help.” from “Is the US an Ally of Israel?: A Chronological Look at the Evidence”; Historical and Investigative Research; by Francisco Gil-White
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/hirally.htm#1967

[32] "It was not clear how military victory could be turned into peace. Shortly after the war's end Israel began that quest, but it would take more than a decade and involve yet another war before yielding any results. Eshkol's secret offer to trade much of the newly won territory for peace agreements with Egypt, Jordan, and Syria was rejected by Nasser, who, supported by an emergency resupply of Soviet arms, led the Arabs at the Khartoum Arab Summit in The Sudan in August 1967 in a refusal to negotiate directly with Israel."

Source: "Labour Rule After Ben-Gurion: Troubled victory" "Israel." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2003.  Encyclopædia Britannica Online. 2 Nov, 2003
http://www.search.eb.com/eb/article?eu=109507

[32a] To read about how the PLO murders Arabs who oppose the killing of Jews, visit:

In 1994 Yasser Arafat was given a Nobel Peace Prize, and the CIA trained the PLO, even though Arafat's henchmen were saying in public, this very year, that they would use their training to oppress Arabs and kill Jews; from “IS THE US AN ALLY OF ISRAEL: A Chronological look at the evidence”; Historical and Investigative Research; by Francisco Gil-White
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/hirally2.htm#1994

Here below is a report from Agence France Presse on the fact that murdering Arabs for selling land to Jews is PLO policy:

“An Arab-Israeli paper reported Thursday that Palestinian nationalist leaders, including the grandfather of the PLO’s current top official in Jerusalem [Hajj Amin al Husseini, who was great uncle (not grandfather) to Faisal Husseini], sold land to Jews in the years before Israel’s founding.

The weekly Fasl al-Maqal, owned by Arab-Israeli parliament deputy Azmi Beshara and based in the predominantly Arab city of Nazareth in north Israel, ran a list of 54 leading Palestinians who sold land to Jews from 1918-1945.

It comes amid widespread controversy over a Palestinian Authority campaign against Arabs who sell land to Jews, mostly in the occupied territories but also in Israel proper. [Palestinian] Authority officials early this month announced that Palestinians who sell land in the West Bank, Gaza Strip or east Jerusalem to Jewish settlers face the death penalty. They have also said sales of Arab-owned land inside Israel will be punished...”

SOURCE: Agence France Presse, May 29, 1997, International news, 840 words, Historical Palestinian leaders sold land to Jews: report, NAZARETH, Israel, May 29

Selling land to Jews is economically attractive because they pay well, and because keeping the land is a risk given that the armed thugs which the Palestinian Authority calls its policemen are fond of confiscating land:

“The 70-person unit ['Gaza Security and Protections unit,' which the abused Arabs have nicknamed the 'death squad'] was formed more than a year ago to crack down on militant groups, including Hamas and Islamic Jihad, and to track and arrest high-profile criminals in Gaza. Instead, some members of the unit were accused of turning into criminals themselves, confiscating land, smuggling weapons and intimidating the general public with threats of violence.”

SOURCE: Associated Press Online, November 27, 2004 Saturday, INTERNATIONAL NEWS, 991 words, Palestinian Security Unit to Be Disbanded, IBRAHIM BARZAK; Associated Press Writer, GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip.

[32b] Levin, K. 2005. The Oslo syndrome: Delusions of a people under siege. Hanover, NH: Smith and Kraus.

[33] Comment&Analysis: There was no failure of intelligence: US spies were ignored, or worse, if they failed to make the case for war, The Guardian (London) - Final Edition, February 5, 2004, Guardian Leader Pages, Pg. 26, 1185 words, Sidney Blumenthal

[34] "the Iranian President [called] for Israel to be 'wiped off the map'..."

SOURCE: BLAIR CONSIDERS UN SANCTIONS AS HE SPEAKS OF 'REVULSION' AT IRANIAN PRESIDENT'S SPEECH, The Independent (London), October 28, 2005, Friday, Final Edition; NEWS; Pg. 5, 745 words, BY ANNE PENKETH AND COLIN BROWN

[35] 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

[36] Driving Toward Middle East Nukes in Our S.U.V.'s,  The New York Times, February 10, 2006 Friday,  Late Edition - Final, Section A; Column 1; Editorial Desk; Pg. 25, 782 words, By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN, LONDON

[37] “In 1994, Yasser Arafat was given a Nobel Peace Prize, and the CIA trained the PLO, even though Arafat's henchmen were saying in public, this very year, that they would use their training to oppress Arabs and kill Jews”; from “Is the US an Ally of Israel?: A Chronological Look at the Evidence”; Historical and Investigative Research; by Francisco Gil-White
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/hirally2.htm#1994

[38] Israel not to blame for Iran's nuclear blackmail,  The Irish Times, February 14, 2006 Tuesday, OPINION; Opinion; Pg. 18, 1035 words, Tom Wright

[39] Nuclear spectre haunts world,  The Toronto Star, February 7, 2006 Tuesday, OPINION; Pg. A17, 619 words

[40] Iran threat like Hitler: Merkel,  THE AUSTRALIAN, February 6, 2006 Monday,  All-round Country Edition, WORLD; Pg. 11, 935 words, Peter Conradi, Abraham Rabinovich


www.hirhome.com

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Notify me of new HIR pieces!

HIR mailing list