March 6, 2006
It should be obvious, considering the photo to the left, who John
Bolton, the Straussian neocon "representative" to the United Nations,
works for—the American-Israel Political Action Committee. "U.S.
Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton,
speaking at a convention of Jewish-Americans, said it is too soon for
the U.N. Security Council to impose sanctions on Iran but other
countries are talking about doing so and Washington is 'beefing up
defensive measures to cope with the Iranian nuclear threat,’" in other
words the Pentagon is preparing to shock and awe Iran, maybe later this
month, but probably down the road, sooner before later.
reaffirmed that the United States does not see the security council
moving quickly to impose sanctions on Iran, but he pointedly noted that
'many other governments have begun to include the word sanctions in
their discourse on Iran,’ implying they may take action outside the
security council." As was the case with the Iraq invasion, the United
Nations is considered irrelevant. "Will the United Nations serve the
purpose of its founding or will it be irrelevant?" Bush asked the
Security Council in September, 2002, a couple months before his neocon
handlers invaded Iraq. Bolton is setting up a re-run.
Recall Condi’s Boy Friday, neocon national security adviser Stephen Hadley, suspected of the vicious outing of Valerie Plame,
telling AIPAC last November that the "spread of democracy [i.e.,
invading various Arab and Muslim countries] will make the Middle East a
safer neighborhood for Israel. An American retreat from Iraq, on the
other hand, would only strengthen the terrorists who seek the
enslavement of Iraq and the eventual destruction of Israel." In other
words, the two thousand plus (and actually closer to 10,000) Americans killed in Iraq were sacrificed to make a "safer neighborhood for Israel."
Zelikow, executive director of Bush’s nine eleven whitewash commission,
said as much. "I’ll tell you what I think the real threat (is) and
actually has been since 1990—it’s the threat against Israel," Zelikow
told a crowd at the University of Virginia on September 10, 2002. "And
the American government doesn’t want to lean too hard on it
rhetorically, because it is not a popular sell," Zelikow added,
admitting that the real reason for invasion and occupation must be
hidden from the American people.
"Israel’s long-term survival depends upon the spread of democracy in the Middle East," Bush
declared last December (simply replace the word "democracy" with
"submission" and you have a better idea of what Bush was saying).
Commenting on Bush’s remark, Bruce Blakeman, billed as a "GOP
activist," told the Forward that Bush (meaning the Straussian neocons)
"realized not only that Saddam Hussein was a danger to America, but
that Saddam Hussein had designs on attacking Israel. There was a
concern that an attack on Israel would turn into a regional war, with
Syria and Iran joining in on Iraq’s side," a comment that is at odds
with reality and a load of hooey to boot.
As the late Livia
Rokach, daughter of Israel Rokach, Minister of the Interior in the
government of Moshe Sharett, second prime minister of Israel, has
noted, Israel has not only consistently provoked its Arab neighbors,
but also has a long and sordid track record of sabotaging U.S.
relations with Arab nations. Rokach, writes Naseer H. Aruri in a
forward to Rokach’s book (Israel’s Sacred Terrorism),
documents "deliberate Israeli acts of provocation, intended to generate
Arab hostility and thus to create pretexts for armed action and
"AIPAC has increasingly tilted to the Likud in Israel, and to the political Right in the United States," notes Juan Cole.
"A handful of special interests in the United States virtually dictate
congressional policy on some issues. With regard to the Arab-Israeli
conflict, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee and a few allies
have succeeded in imposing complete censorship on both houses of
Congress. No senator or representative dares make a speech on the floor
of his or her institution critical of Israeli policy, even though the
Israeli government often violates international law and UN Security
Council resolutions (it would violate more such resolutions, except
that the resolutions never got passed because only one NSC member, the
U.S., routinely vetoes them on behalf of Tel Aviv.) As the Labor Party
in Israel has been eclipsed by the Likud coalition, which includes many
proto-fascist groups, this subservience has yoked Washington to foreign
politicians who privately favor ethnic cleansing and/or aggressive
warfare for the purpose of annexing the territory of neighbors."
neocon handlers no longer care to hide the fact U.S. foreign policy is
designed to make a "safer neighborhood for Israel" and this project has
so far cost the lives of around 250,000 Iraqis,
a few thousand Americans, and billions of U.S dollars (in addition,
Israel has received $84.8 billion in grants, loans, and commodities
from the fleeced U.S. taxpayer since 1949, or around $23,000 per U.S.
citizen, according to research conducted by Richard H. Curtiss).
appears the Straussian neocons are advertising that the up-coming shock
and awe attack on Iran is in the interest of Israel, as Bolton’s speech
before AIPAC reveals. Of course, since most Americans don’t pay
attention or can’t be bothered with such political signals, considering
such little more than irritating minutiae, they will ultimately end up
bamboozled once again by the Straussian neocons, determined to squander
all of America’s precious resources on invasions and occupations in the
name of Israel.