woensdag 29 juli 2015

Geen Jorwert zonder TTIP 4

Klik hier om onze nieuwsbrief online te lezen
Twitter Facebook LinkedIn     
Gelekt stuk Duitse regering: TTIP ondermijnt parlementen

Als TTIP er komt zouden bepaalde wetten en regels in de 
toekomst zonder parlementaire instemming kunnen worden aangepast. Dit blijkt uit een analyse van foodwatch van eengelekt rapport dat is geschreven door het Duitse ministerie van Economische Zaken. Volgens het rapport hebben zowel de Duitse als de Franse regering eerder dit jaar hun zorgen geuit tegenover de Europese Commissie over de democratie ondermijnende aspecten van TTIP. Dit is opvallend omdat beide regeringen tot nu toe publiekelijk altijd ontkend hebben dat TTIP een bedreiging vormt voor de beleidsvrijheid van nationale parlementen. Intern wordt daar blijkbaar anders over gedacht.

De kern van het probleem is wat in de onderhandelingen 'regulatory cooperation' wordt genoemd. TTIP probeert handel te stimuleren door verschillen in wet- en regelgeving tussen de EU en de VS op te heffen. Het gaat hierbij echter niet alleen om bestaande regelgeving maar ook over toekomstige. Om ervoor te zorgen dat wetten en regels in de toekomst niet opnieuw uiteen zullen lopen, worden er door TTIP allerlei nieuwe niet-democratisch gelegitimeerde trans- Atlantische instituten opgericht.
 
>> Teken ook voor volledige en eerlijke communicatie rondom TTIP
Uit het gelekte document blijkt dat zowel de Franse als de Duitse regering eerder dit jaar  hebben gewaarschuwd voor het feit dat deze nieuwe trans-Atlantische organen zonder instemming van democratisch gekozen parlementen de annexen van het TTIP-verdrag kunnen aanpassen. Dit heeft vergaande gevolgen voor onze democratie. In deze annexen worden bijvoorbeeld de richtlijnen voor etikettering van levensmiddelen en voor de toelating van chemische stoffen vastgelegd. Deze kunnen straks worden aangepast zonder dat daar een gekozen volksvertegenwoordiger aan te pas komt!

foodwatch wijst al langer op deze gevaren van TTIP. Vorige maand riepen we in Nederland minister Ploumen op om burgers volledig en op transparante wijze  te informeren over de risico's die TTIP met zich meebrengt. Na het uitlekken van dit Duitse regeringsdocument zal deze roep om een open en eerlijk debat over TTIP nog luider klinken. Wij willen het hele verhaal, en geen verdrag dat onze democratie bedreigt!


Nog geen uitspraak in rechtszaak over cholesterolverlagende Becel pro-activ

Op dinsdag 28 juli stond foodwatch in Duitsland voor een tweede maal tegenover Unilever in de rechtbank. foodwatch spande in januari 2012 een rechtszaak aan tegen Unilever vanwege het verhullen van informatie over de bijwerkingen van het Becel-pro activ. foodwatch verloor de zaak, maar ging tegen de uitspraak in beroep. De hoorzitting van het beroep vond op 28 juli jl. plaats in Hanseatische Hogergerechtshof (Hanseatische Oberlandesgericht) te Hamburg. Het hof buigt zich nu over de zaak, en doet op 1 september 2015 uitspraak.                        
Zowel in Nederland als Duitsland vecht foodwatch al jarenlang tegen de misleidende claims van Unilever ten aanzien van Becel pro-activ. Becel pro-activ is een cholesterolverlagend medicijn in de vorm van een voedingsmiddel, waaraan een hooggeconcentreerd werkzaam ingrediënt is toegevoegd. Het gezondheidsvoordeel van het product is niet bewezen. Nog erger: de veiligheid van het product staat ter discussie. De plantensterolen in Becel Pro-activ kunnen op lange termijn namelijk schadelijk zijn voor hart- en bloedvaten. Het probleem? Omdat het product vrij te koop is, tornen niet alleen mensen met hoog cholesterol, maar ook gezonde mensen en kinderen aan hun bloedwaarden.

>> Vind jij ook dat Becel pro-activ niet in de supermarkten thuis hoort?  Teken de e-mailactie!

Toch beweerde Unilever in 2011, refererend aan wetenschapper prof. Klör, dat er “geen aanwijzingen” waren van bijwerkingen van Becel pro-activ. Unilever wijst naar een vijftigtal onderzoeken die de veiligheid en het gezondheidsvoordeel van Becel pro-activ zouden aantonen. Deze klinische langetermijnonderzoeken heeft het bedrijf echter niet openbaar gemaakt. Het argument dat er geen aanwijzingen zijn voor bijwerkingen is volgens foodwatch onhoudbaar. Er zijn namelijk talrijke onderzoeken die wel op risico's wijzen. Zo wees het Franse agentschap voor voedselveiligheid ANSES  in 2014 op het ontbreken van bewijs van dat voedingsmiddelen met toegevoegde plantensterolen hart- en vaatziekten zouden voorkomen. Het Duitse Bundesinstitut für Risikobewertung waarschuwde al eerder dat de consumptie van voedsel met toegevoegde plantensterolen door gezonde mensen moet worden vermeden, en eiste onlangs dat de toelating hiervan opnieuw door EFSA wordt beoordeeld.

foodwatch wil de bewering van Unilever dat er “geen aanwijzingen voor bijwerkingen” zouden zijn dan ook laten verbieden, zodat de producent de gezondheidsrisico's van Becel Pro-activ niet langer kan verbloemen. Op 14 december 2012 besloot de arondissementsrechtbank in Hamburg in deze zaak dat de bewering van Unilever slechts een “mening” was en daarom toegestaan – onafhankelijk van het waarheidsgehalte hiervan. De juistheid van de bewering werd niet door de rechtbank getoetst.

“Consumenten kunnen er kennelijk niet van uit gaan dat beweringen van bedrijven over productveiligheid ook feitelijk juist moeten zijn. Dit is een ernstige en kwalijke zaak, die dodelijke gevolgen kan hebben” aldus Oliver Huizinga, campaigner bij foodwatch Duitsland.

foodwatch vindt dat als een bedrijf de geloofwaardigheid van professoren inzet om haar producten te verkopen, de gedane beweringen ook aan hun waarheidsgehalte getoetst moeten worden, en ging daarom tegen de uitspraak in beroep. Ook vindt foodwatch dat als een bedrijf producten met medicinale werking wil verkopen, de maatstaven voor medicinale producten gehanteerd moeten worden. Wij eisen dat Unilever toelating als geneesmiddel aanvraagt. Medicijnen zijn bedoeld voor patiënten, en horen niet in supermarkten thuis.



Met vriendelijke groet,


Ilse Griek
Directeur
Stichting foodwatch Nederland

P.S. We hebben je steun hard nodig! Niet alleen omdat campagne voeren geld kost, maar ook omdat we samen een krachtige vuist kunnen maken. Ga direct naar onze website en meld je aan als donateur!

Nieuwsbrief aanbevelen 

Wijzigen e-mailadres of afmelden nieuwsbrief

Privacybeleid 

foodwatch Nederland
Fizeaustraat 23
1097 SC Amsterdam
info@foodwatch.nl

NL43 TRIO 0390 3757 64


Neoliberal Capitalism

Mass Die-Off of Fish Underscores Dangers of Palm Oil Industry in Guatemala

Wednesday, 29 July 2015 00:00 By Jeff Abbott, Truthout | Report 
Crossing the River Pasión today, nothing would appear out of the ordinary: Boats ferry people across the river while a woman washes clothing in the murky brown water. But a little over a month ago, the scene was different. On May 30, residents of the municipality of Sayaxché, in the Guatemalan department of Petén, awoke to find tens of thousands of fish floating in the river. For residents, it was clear who was responsible for the die-off: the local palm company, Reforestadora de Palma del Petén (REPSA), a member of the powerful Olmeca Group.
"We rely on the river for fish and our water," Hermelindo Choc, a resident of Arroyo Santa Maria, one of the towns most affected by the contamination, told Truthout. "But now we are afraid to drink the water and to eat the fish. The palm company has left us with nothing."

"We are afraid to drink the water and to eat the fish. The palm company has left us with nothing."

The environmental tragedy, which community members have called an ecocide, first began on April 29 when heavy rains caused the oxidation pools at the palm firm's finca to overflow, pouring into the river. The firm took steps to hide the impact of the pollution by collecting the dead fish that appeared in the river. But it could not conceal the mass die-off of river life, including 23 species of fish and 21 species of animals that feed on the fish.
The affected communities along the river have demanded that the company's operations be investigated and closed down because of the contamination.
But the firm denied responsibility. On June 15, the company issued a statement stating that there was "never an ecocide," and that the company "was not responsible" for the contamination. But this claim contradicts both scientific evidence and the company's statements immediately following the incident.
On May 5, REPSA's legal representatives sent a letter to the Ministry of the Environment and Natural Resources informing the ministry of the contamination and admitting the firm's (unintentional) role in causing it.

The firm could not conceal the mass die-off of river life, including 23 species of fish.

"Unusually heavy rains provoked the overflow of oxidation pools," wrote Carlos Arevalo, the legal representative for REPSA, to Gustavo Chacon Cordon, a representative from the Ministry of the Environment and Natural Resources. "Fish were found with signs of asphyxiation. We have sent samples to the University of San Carlos to determine the cause of death."
The report from the toxicology department at Guatemala's National University of San Carlos found high levels of the chemical malathion, an illegal pesticide, in samples collected from the river. But the government has shown little interest in investigating the contamination.
Juan Castro of the Association of Mayan Lawyers represents the communities affected by the ecocide. "This represents an economic model that cannot be controlled," Castro said during a press conference. "And it represents the negligence of the government to put into place regulations on the palm industry."
This is not the first time the palm industry has contaminated Guatemalan ecosystems. Palm companies have been tied to environmental disasters in 2012, 2013 and 2014, but none of the firms accused have been held accountable for the pollution.
A Militarized Response to Environmental Protests
Since the May 30 ecocide, community members have organized regular protests at the entrances of REPSA's fincas in Sayaxché and in Guatemala City, demanding the Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources open an investigation into the contamination.
In response, politicians from Petén, including Manuel Barquin, a congressional deputy for the party Líder, approached Vice President Alejandro Maldonado Aguirre to ask that President Otto Pérez Molina declare a "state of exception" in Sayaxché, which would have suspended the constitution and led to the deployment of the military to quash the protests. On June 23, soldiers from a nearby base began to appear alongside the river and to accompany company vehicles, but a state of exception was never declared.
"We don't need soldiers here, and a state of exception," Arroyo Santa Maria resident Choc told Truthout. "What we need is a state of calamity and humanitarian aid. The communities affected by the contamination don't have water, and now we cannot eat the fish. It is a desperate situation."
The Expansion of the Palm Oil Industry
Monoculture of African palm, the species grown for palm oil, has spread across northern Guatemala and throughout Central America. The expansion has monopolized land and displaced farmers.
"Everything is now palm," Juan Ixic, a teacher and representative from Sayaxché, told Truthout. "It has taken over nearly 80 percent of our lands. As a result, there is no land for campesinos to grow maize. All of our maize is now imported from Mexico or other parts of the country."

"All these communities want is dignified and just work. But these firms only bring more exploitation."

Guatemala's climate is ideal for the production of palm oil, which can be used in everything from soaps and shampoos to industrial lubricants, and as a cheap vegetable oil in many food products, including Ben and Jerry's ice cream and Nutella. Furthermore, producers have found that the African palms grown in Guatemala produce more oil than those of any other country - further driving investment in the industry. Since the 1990s, five companies, including REPSA, Tiki Industries, NEISA, Palmas del Ixcan and Unipalm, have opened operations in Sayaxché and northern Guatemala.
Following the signing of Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) in 2006, the Guatemalan palm industry has increasingly gained the attention of transnational capital interested in the production of biofuels.
According to Byron Garoz from the Ixim Center for Rural Studies, African palm production in the country has expanded nearly 270 percent since 2006. Guatemala is the fourth largest exporter of African palm (still well behind neighboring Honduras and Colombia).
"The trade agreement has facilitated the arrival of more transnational companies operating in our country that are not paying taxes, and damaging our environment," Saul Paau, a representative for the communities affected by the ecological disaster, told Truthout. "The plan of the United States is for transnational companies to invest in our country to respond to the needs of society, and from this they began to impose the concentration of land for monocultures."
The US Department of Agriculture, and in particular its Foreign Agriculture Service, has played an important part in the promotion of African palm oil as a biofuel. And the Inter-American Development Bank has provided much of the funding.
Privately held companies are investing as well. For example, in 2007, Green Earth Fuels, a Houston-based biofuel company and a subsidiary of the Carlyle Group, acquired the Guatemalan palm producer Palmas del Ixcán, with the goal of expanding the palm company's operations to include biofuel production. The next year, when Guatemala joined the US-Brazil Biofuel Initiative, a plan to develop biofuels across Latin America, Green Earth Fuels invested $14 million in Palmas del Ixcán for biofuel production. The investment was made with loans from Goldman Sachs.
The Politics of Displacement
The expansion of palm has benefited a minority of well-connected families, but not the indigenous communities of northern Guatemala.
The situation facing indigenous communities across Guatemala exposes the dark side of so-called "green energies." As Paau points out, there are always social and environmental costs. In addition to environmental devastation, African palm oil production has exacerbated land inequality in Guatemala, and has especially affected the indigenous Q'eqchi Mayan communities across the region.
"The United States is the greatest global consumer of energy in the world, and they are also the ones that are most concerned with the creation of new alternative energies, but they don't know the costs," Paau told Truthout. "The production of biofuels requires the use of land, which in turn leads to further concentration of land. It damages the land, the air and the water. We are seeing the effects here in our territory."
The firms involved have promoted the expansion of the palm industry as development, creating jobs for rural communities. But according to Lorenzo Perez Mendoza of the Consejo Nacional de Desplazados de Guatemala (National Council of Displaced Guatemalans), this "development" has come at the cost of the community's land and food security. The palm industry has transformed land that was used for the production of food staples, such as maize, rice and beans, into rows of palm, worsening the country's ongoing hunger crisis.
Guatemalan President Otto Pérez Molina "has said that his idea of development is further foreign investment in our country," Perez Mendoza told Truthout. "But these firms come and tear the social fabric of communities. People come from other departments, and other countries, and cause problems for the established communities. All these communities want is dignified and just work. But these firms only bring more exploitation."
The production of palm oil and other export agriculture crops such as snow peas and broccoli has monopolized land once used for the production of staples such as beans, maize and rice. According to research from the Coordinator of Non-Governmental Organizations and Cooperatives, since 2003, more than 700 hectares (1,730 acres) of land used for the production of staples has been lost to the export-agriculture industries.
Unequal Land Distribution
The expansion of the palm oil industry also builds on Guatemala's long history of unequal land distribution, a root cause of the country's 36-year-long internal armed conflict.
Following the 1996 peace accords, the Guatemalan state and an internationally sponsored land fund used loans from the World Bank to begin purchasing land for displaced campesinos. But by 1999, this process slowed down and then reversed.
"Guatemala is one of the countries with the most unequal distribution of land in Latin America," Marisol Garcés, a social anthropologist who has worked in Petén for 11 years, told Truthout. "Currently, we are in a period of reconcentration of land in the hands of [the] few. There are more people now who don't have access to land than at the end of the war. It is contradictory to the peace accords and to the concept of capitalist development - it is almost feudal."
The palm companies have systematically separated campesinos from their land to encourage the land's sale. When these tactics have failed, firms have utilized other strong-armed tactics.
In 2014, community organizer Manuel Xi was murdered near the center of Sayaxché. At the time, Xi had been involved in organizing in protest of Palmas del Ixcán land acquisitions. Xi had received threatening messages at his home and on his mobile phone warning him against organizing. But there has yet to be an investigation into his assassination.
"It was Palmas del Ixcán that killed Xi," Choc told Truthout. "The company wanted to get rid of him. A year later there has still not been an investigation."
"What does the law mean in Guatemala?" added Choc. "It applies to the poor campesino who is charged when he cuts down a tree in a protected area, but not the rich. It is the problem here in Guatemala - the impunity."
Note: Some of the names in this article have been changed to protect the speakers' identities.
Copyright, Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission

JEFF ABBOTT

Jeff Abbott is an independent journalist currently based out of Guatemala. He has covered human rights, social moments and issues related to education, immigration and land in the United States, Mexico and Guatemala. His work has appeared at Waging Nonviolence, Upside Down World and North American Congress on Latin America. Follow him on Twitter @palabrasdeabajo.

    Modern Fascism

    And Now for something completely different: Fascism has many faces. This is one of them:

    British Columnist Katie Hopkins Wants 'Euthanasia Vans' Because There Are 'Too Many Old People'

    They'd be just like ... ice cream trucks.


    A British TV personality and columnist said she supports "euthanasia vans" because there are "too many old people."
    Katie Hopkins, who is currently a columnist for The Sun, made the comments during an interview with Radio Times magazine.
    "We just have far too many old people," she said. “It’s ridiculous to be living in a country where we can put dogs to sleep but not people.”
    Her solution? Euthanasia vans that go to homes like ice cream trucks. “It would all be perfectly charming. They might even have a nice little tune they’d play. I mean this genuinely. I’m super-keen on euthanasia vans. We need to accept that just because medical advances mean we can live longer, it’s not necessarily the right thing to do.”
    Hopkins defended her controversial stances in a video published Tuesday by the Guardian.
    "I have to be fearless in my defense of my opinion, and that's what I try to do," she said. "I think, actually, I give a voice to ... the regular, good, everyday British citizen who's trying their best to do the right thing for their family. For me, that's who I represent. That's who I'm really keen to stand up for."
    Hopkins is gearing up for the debut of her panel show on TLC, "If Katie Hopkins Ruled The World," set to premiere next month.

    U.S. Racism 6

    Ohio Cop Indicted On Murder Charge In Traffic-Stop Shooting


    CINCINNATI (AP) -- A University of Cincinnati officer who shot a motorist during a traffic stop over a missing front license plate has been indicted on murder charges, a prosecutor said Wednesday, adding that the officer "purposely killed him" and "should never have been a police officer."
    Hamilton County Prosecutor Joe Deters announced the grand jury indictment at a news conference to discuss developments in the investigation into the July 19 shooting of 43-year-old motorist Samuel DuBose by Officer Ray Tensing.
    Tensing has said he was dragged by DuBose's car and forced to shoot after he pulled over DuBose for a missing front license plate, according to a university police report. Tensing said in his radio call to a dispatcher that the car almost ran over him and he fired one shot, striking DuBose in the head.

    Deters said Wednesday that Tensing's contention that his arm got stuck in the car was "nonsense."
    The officer wasn't dragged by the car, Deters said. "He fell backward after he shot (DuBose) in the head."
    Deters said a warrant has been issued for Tensing's arrest.
    Tensing's attorney, Stewart Mathews, didn't immediately return phone messages seeking comment after Deters' announcement.
    Mathews said earlier Wednesday that he thought an indictment was likely "given the political climate" and comments made by city officials. But Mathews said given the evidence he's seen, he doesn't believe there should be an indictment.
    Body-camera video of the shooting was also being released Wednesday, the prosecutor said. DuBose's family had been pressing for its release, and news organizations including The Associated Press had sued Deters to get it released under Ohio open records law.
    The University of Cincinnati on Wednesday closed its main campus in anticipation of grand jury action in the case.
    Deters called the shooting "senseless" and "asinine."
    "He purposely killed him," Deters said. "He should never have been a police officer."
    Deters said when he saw the video of the shooting, he was shocked.
    "And I realize what this was going to mean to our community, and it really broke my heart because it's just bad," Deters said.
    "I feel so sorry for this family and what they lost," Deters said. "And I feel sorry for the community, too."
    If convicted, Tensing could face up to life in prison.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/ray-tensing-indicted_55b90dade4b0074ba5a72099?


    Robert Parry 36


    When Israel/Neocons Favored Iran


    Exclusive: The modern history of U.S.-Israeli-Iranian relations dates back 35 years to a time of political intrigue when Israel’s Likud leaders and the Reagan administration’s neocons secretly worked to arm Iran’s radical regime, an inconvenient truth given today’s anti-Iran hysteria, writes Robert Parry.

    After the July 14 agreement between six world powers and Iran to tightly constrain its nuclear program, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called on the U.S. Congress to overturn the deal and ratchet up the confrontation with Iran, which he calls an “existential threat” to Israel.
    As part of Israel’s campaign to derail the agreement, Iran is portrayed as a reckless “rogue” regime with the madness dating back to 1979 when the Iranian revolution ousted the Shah of Iran and the U.S. Embassy in Tehran was overrun with scores of diplomatic personnel taken hostage and 52 of them held for 444 days.
    Former Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, a leading neocon and proponent of the Iraq War. (Defense Department photo)
    Former Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, a leading neocon and proponent of the Iraq War. (Defense Department photo)
    But the lost history from that era included the fact that Israel’s Likud government of Menachem Begin moved quickly to reestablish secret ties with the “rogue” regime of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini and became an important source for covert arms supplies to Iran after Iraq invaded Iran in September 1980.
    It was not until the early 1990s – after the eight-year war with Iran-Iraq War was over and Iran’s budget for weapons purchases was depleted – when Israel began transforming Iran into its principal regional enemy. Similarly, American neoconservatives inside the Reagan administration sought to put U.S. policy in sync with Israel’s pro-Iranian tilt in 1981, but the neocons shifted – along with Israel – to transform Iran into a psychotic enemy during the 1990s.
    I discovered documents at the Reagan presidential library in Simi Valley, California, revealing that on July 21, 1981, just six months after Iran freed 52 Americans hostages at the same moment as President Reagan was being sworn in on Jan. 20, 1981, senior Reagan administration officials secretly endorsed third-party weapons sales to Iran.
    By that point, the Israeli arms pipeline to Iran already was functioning. Three days earlier, on July 18, an Argentine plane strayed off course and crashed (or was shot down) inside the Soviet Union exposing Israel’s secret arms shipments to Iran, which apparently had been going on for months.
    After the plane went down, Assistant Secretary of State for the Middle East Nicholas Veliotes tried to get to the bottom of the mysterious weapons flight. “According to the [flight] documents,” Veliotes said later in an interview with PBS Frontline, “this was chartered by Israel and it was carrying American military equipment to Iran. …
    “And it was clear to me after my conversations with people on high that indeed we had agreed that the Israelis could transship to Iran some American-origin military equipment. Now this was not a covert operation in the classic sense, for which probably you could get a legal justification for it. As it stood, I believe it was the initiative of a few people [who] gave the Israelis the go-ahead. The net result was a violation of American law.”
    The reason that the Israeli weapons shipments violated U.S. law was that no formal notification had been given to Congress about the transshipment of U.S. military equipment as required by the Arms Export Control Act.
    But the Reagan administration was in a bind about notifying Congress and thus the American people about approving arms shipments to Iran so soon after the hostage crisis. The news would have infuriated many Americans and stoked suspicions that the Republicans had cut a deal with Iran to hold the hostages until President Jimmy Carter was defeated.
    In checking out the Israeli flight, Veliotes also came to believe that the arrangement between Ronald Reagan’s camp and Israel regarding Iran and weapons dated back to before the 1980 election.
    “It seems to have started in earnest in the period probably prior to the election of 1980, as the Israelis had identified who would become the new players in the national security area in the Reagan administration,” Veliotes said. “And I understand some contacts were made at that time.”
    Q: “Between?”
    Veliotes: “Between Israelis and these new players.”
    Rise of the Neocons
    In subsequent interviews, Veliotes said he was referring to “new players” who came into government with President Reagan, now known as the neoconservatives, including Robert McFarlane, who was then counselor to Secretary of State Alexander Haig, and Paul Wolfowitz, the State Department’s director of policy planning.
    Robert McFarlane, Ronald Reagan's third National Security Advisor. (Official portrait)
    Robert McFarlane, Ronald Reagan’s third National Security Advisor. (Official portrait)
    According to the documents at the Reagan library, McFarlane and Wolfowitz were collaborating with Israel through a clandestine channel of communication. One memo from Wolfowitz to McFarlane – regarding the Israeli channel on Iran – noted that “for this dialogue to be fruitful it must remain restricted to an extraordinarily small number of people.”
    Though this secret conduit between the neocons and Israel about Iran may have originated before Election 1980, it continued, with some fits and starts, for years finally merging with what became known as the Iran-Contra Affair of 1985-86. In that scandal, Reagan secretly authorized the sale of U.S. anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles to Iran through Israel. The documents from the Reagan library suggest that the Iran-Contra machinations were an outgrowth of these earlier U.S. contacts with Israel regarding arms sales to Iran dating back to 1980-81.
    McFarlane’s personal involvement in these activities threaded through the years of these clandestine operations, beginning with pre-election maneuverings with Iran in fall 1980 when its radical government was holding those 52 U.S. hostages and thus dooming President Carter’s reelection hopes.
    McFarlane, then a retired Marine lieutenant colonel and a Senate Armed Services Committee aide to Sen. John Tower, R-Texas, participated in a mysterious meeting with an Iranian emissary at the L’Enfant Plaza Hotel in Washington. That contact has never been coherently explained by McFarlane or two other Republican participants, Richard V. Allen (who later became Reagan’s national security advisor) and Laurence Silberman (who was later appointed as a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington). [For details, see Robert Parry’s Secrecy & Privilege.]
    Seeking the Iran Portfolio
    After Reagan was inaugurated in 1981, McFarlane popped up at the State Department working hand-in-glove with the Israelis on Iranian arms shipments. He subsequently moved to Reagan’s National Security Council where he played a central role in arranging a new security cooperation agreement with Israel in 1983 and initiating Reagan’s illicit Iran-Contra arms sales through Israel to Iran in 1985-86.
    In 2013, when I asked Veliotes about the declassified 1981 documents describing the McFarlane/Wolfowitz arrangement for third-country arms sales to Iran, he responded by e-mail, saying: “My guess it was triggered by the issue of the provision of U.S.-origin defense items to Iran by Israel, which received a certain amount of publicity around this time [July 1981]. This was contrary to U.S. law.
    “My further guess is that Israel would have been the channel for delivery of non-U.S.-origin arms. That Wolfowitz and McFarlane would push this is no surprise. The two were part of the neocon cabal that professed to see Soviets everywhere in the Middle East and Israel as a major anti-Soviet ally. Ergo, support for Israeli actions would be in the U.S. interest.”
    On July 13, 1981, with the Israel-to-Iran shipments in full swing but still five days before the Argentine plane crashed, this State Department neocon group pushed a formal plan for allowing third-country weapons shipment to Iran. But the idea encountered strong resistance from an Interdepartmental Group (IG), according to a memo from L. Paul Bremer III, who was then the State Department’s executive secretary and considered one of the neocons.
    Though many Americans were still livid toward Iran for the 444-day hostage crisis, Bremer’s memo described a secret tilt toward Iran by the Reagan administration, a strategy which included confirming “to American businessmen that it is in the U.S. interest to take advantage of commercial opportunities in Iran.” But the memo noted an inter-agency disagreement over whether the United States should oppose third-country shipments of non-U.S. weapons to Iran.
    “State felt that transfers of non-U.S. origin arms to Iran by third countries should not be opposed,” the memo said. “However, other agency representatives at the IG – DOD [the Department of Defense] and CIA – felt that the supply of any arms to Iran would encourage Iran to resist efforts to bring an end to the war [with Iraq] and that all arms transfers to Iran should be actively discouraged.” (More than two decades later, Bremer would become famous – or infamous – as the American proconsul overseeing the disastrous occupation of Iraq.)
    Because of the disagreement within the Interdepartmental Group, the Iran arms issue was bumped to the Senior Interdepartmental Group or SIG, where principals from the agencies met. Yet, before the SIG convened, the Israeli-chartered plane crashed inside the Soviet Union revealing the existence of the already-functioning secret arms pipeline.
    But that incident was downplayed by the State Department in its press guidance and received little attention from the U.S. news media, which still accepted the conventional wisdom depicting President Reagan as a forceful leader who was standing up to the Iranians, surely not rewarding them with arms shipments and business deals.
    Approving the Shipments
    When the SIG met on July 21, 1981, the State Department’s view, giving Israel a green light on arms shipments to Iran, prevailed. The SIG – reflecting the opinions of such top officials as Vice President George H.W. Bush, CIA Director William J. Casey, Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger and Secretary of State Alexander Haig – sided with State’s neocons.
    Though the SIG decision paper was not among the documents released to me by the archivists at the Reagan library, the policy shift was referenced in a Sept. 23, 1981, memo from Bremer to National Security Advisor Richard V. Allen. Bremer’s memo was reacting to a Sept. 3 complaint from the Joint Chiefs of Staff who wanted their dissent to the relaxed Iran arms policy noted.
    In attaching a copy of the JCS dissent, Bremer revealed the outlines of the Iran policy shift. Lt. Gen. Paul F. Gorman noted in the dissent that “the moderate Arab states of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, Oman, and the United Arab Emirates are committed to a policy opposing arms transfers to Iran.
    “If the United States drops its opposition to the transfer of arms not of US origin to Iran by third countries, the moderate Arabs would interpret that action as directly counter to their interests. The impact would be especially serious if Israel increased its arms deliveries to Iran in the wake of a US policy change.
    “The Arab perspective tends to automatically link Israeli actions and US policy. The Iraqi Government recently informed the Chief of the US Interest Section in Baghdad that Iraq considers the United States ultimately responsible for arms already transferred to Iran by Israel since, in Iraq’s view, those transfers were possible only because US arms supplies to Israel are more than actually needed for Israel’s defense.
    “If Israeli deliveries of arms to Iran increase after a change of US policy, the Iraqi argument may find a sympathetic audience among moderate Arab states. This would add to the momentum of growing discontent with US-to-Israel arms policy, which surfaced within some moderate Arab states after the Israeli air attacks in Iraq and Lebanon. This, in turn, would jeopardize US efforts to secure facility access and host-nation support in Arab states vital to US Southwest Asia strategy.”
    The JCS also disputed Iran’s need for more weapons, saying: “Implicit in the argument for arms transfers to Iran is the idea that Iran needs arms to resist further Iraqi incursions. The Joint Chiefs of Staff believe, however, that the military capability of Iran is sufficient to meet the current Iraqi threat. …
    “Iraq has long called for negotiations to end the war [which began in September 1980] and on several occasions has announced its willingness to accept a ceasefire. Given this politico-military climate, deliberate US action to encourage an increase in arms supply to Iran is unwarranted at this time. Rather than adding to the prospects for peace, increased supplies of arms may encourage Iran to intensify its military actions and continue to reject the negotiated-settlement option. … Based on the above rationale, the Joint Chiefs of Staff recommend that the United States continue to oppose all arms transfers to Iran at this time.”
    Reacting to the JCS complaint, Bremer protested to National Security Advisor Allen that the policy shift was only a passive acceptance of third-country arms sales. “No participating agency at the SIG argued in favor of arms transfers,” Bremer wrote on Sept. 23, 1981, “nor did any agency argue in favor of ‘deliberate U.S. action to encourage an increase in arms supply to Iran.’”
    But the policy shift did amount to an acceptance of Israeli shipments of weapons to Iran. Israeli and U.S. government sources involved in the operations have told me that those shipments – coming from a wide range of arms suppliers – continued unabated for years, totaling in the tens of billions of dollars, with some of the profits going to fund Jewish settlements in the Palestinian territories.
    The JCS warnings proved prescient regarding the geopolitical impact of the Israeli arms flow to Iran. Through the latter half of 1981, Iraqi officials complained bitterly about what they viewed as U.S. complicity in Israel’s arms shipments to Iran and about Iran’s resulting capability to sustain its war effort. State Department officials responded to these complaints by dancing around what they knew to be true, i.e., that Israel had shipped U.S.-origin and third-country weapons to Iran with U.S. knowledge and, to some degree, U.S. approval.
    In one cable to British authorities, Secretary of State Haig described U.S. policy disingenuously as “hands off” toward the Iran-Iraq War. The cable said, “We have been assured repeatedly by Israeli officials at the highest level that arms subject to U.S. controls would not be provided Iran. We have no concrete evidence to believe that Israel has violated its assurances.”
    However, over the years, senior Israeli officials have claimed what Veliotes’s investigation also determined, that Israel’s early arms shipments to Iran had the quiet blessing of top Reagan administration officials.
    In 1982, Israeli Defense Minister Ariel Sharon told The Washington Post that U.S. officials had approved the Iranian arms transfers. “We said that notwithstanding the tyranny of Khomeini, which we all hate, we have to leave a small window open to this country, a tiny small bridge to this country,” Sharon said, although other evidence suggested that the bridge was more like an eight-lane highway.
    On an Urgent Basis
    By late summer 1981, the McFarlane-Wolfowitz tandem was making a bid to secure secret control over U.S. policy toward Iran. In a memo to Secretary Haig on Sept. 1, 1981, McFarlane and Wolfowitz urged Haig to put McFarlane in charge of that policy. “What we do recommend is that you give Bud (McFarlane) a charter to develop policy on these issues, both within the Department and interagency, on an urgent basis,” the memo said.
    Later in the year, McFarlane and Wolfowitz saw a new opening to bind U.S. policies on Iran more closely to the interests of Israel. In a Dec. 8, 1981 memo, McFarlane told Wolfowitz about a planned meeting he was to have with Israeli foreign policy and intelligence official David Kimche on Dec. 20.
    “At this meeting I would like to introduce two new topics to our agenda and for this purpose would appreciate your providing the necessary analysis and talking points,” McFarlane wrote to Wolfowitz. One of those topics was Iran, according to the document. However, the second item remained blacked out for national security reasons.
    “Needless to say, this is a sensitive matter and you should not coordinate its development with any other office,” McFarlane wrote. “You should not coordinate it with any other Bureau.”
    Wolfowitz delivered the “talking points” on Dec. 14 for what to tell Kimche. “There is intense concern about the future of Iran at a very high level in the U.S. government,” the talking points read. “If friends of the United States were able to suggest practical and prudent means of influencing events within Iran, it is possible that the U.S. government might eventually move to a more active policy. I am anxious to begin a dialogue with Israel on how to influence the evolution of events … I feel that Israeli-U.S. cooperation could be important in dealing with these issues.”
    Wolfowitz also suggested that McFarlane enlist Israel in efforts to draw Turkey into the Iran strategies. “I would be grateful for ideas on how Turkish cooperation could be effectively used,” the talking points stated. “We should consider first whether we can set in motion any methods of influencing internal developments in Iran. Since none of the existing exile movements have major support within Iran, we have to look primarily at other internal means for the present. … Do you have any way of providing useful resources to the moderate clergy who are now out of politics?”
    The talking points made clear that there was a military or “regime change” component to this new strategy, posing the question: “In a civil war situation, what are the crucial skills and equipment that the pro-Western elements are more likely to lack?”
    The talking points – for what McFarlane should tell Kimche – added, “Finally, we believe it is important to ensure that the West has some counter to Soviet introduction of paramilitary or proxy forces, without necessarily having to turn to U.S. forces — so that the USSR does not have an option we cannot counter.”
    The talking points also impressed upon Kimche the need for utmost secrecy: “Of course, for this dialogue to be fruitful it must remain restricted to an extraordinarily small number of people.”
    In other words, McFarlane and Wolfowitz were looking to the Israelis as key partners in devising strategies for affecting the internal behavior of the Iranian government. And the Israelis’ principal currency for obtaining that influence was the shipment of weapons. McFarlane and Wolfowitz also planned to collaborate secretly with Israel in devising broader U.S. policies toward the Middle East – and they intended to hide those policies from other U.S. government officials.
    Moving on Up
    In his 1994 memoir, Special Trust, McFarlane described the broad sweep of issues raised in his meetings with Kimche, who had served as a senior Mossad official but in 1981 was director-general of the Israeli Foreign Ministry.
    McFarlane wrote: “In addition to sales of military hardware and substantial U.S. military and economic aid to Israel, we discussed the possibility of applying Israel’s experience and talent in the areas of … police and security training in third world areas, particularly Central America, under contracts from the Agency for International Development.” [p. 186]
    In 1982, Reagan moved McFarlane to the White House as Deputy National Security Advisor, giving him responsibility for integrating the administration’s foreign policies. But Wolfowitz’s Policy Planning office came under the control of more seasoned leadership, Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs Lawrence Eagleburger.
    According to the declassified records, Eagleburger was far from impressed by the McFarlane-Wolfowitz schemes for Iran. On April 1, 1982, Eagleburger responded to a memo from one of Wolfowitz’s assistants, James G. Roche. Eagleburger dryly noted that Roche’s memo, “A More Active Policy Toward Iran,” “contains a number of interesting ideas. I have serious doubts about nearly all of them, largely because of their effects on our relations with the Arabs.”
    Eagleburger put question marks after several sections of Roche’s memo including one, “a more forthcoming policy toward third party arms transfers to both Iran and Iraq,” and another urging “exploration of possible U.S. and other Western economic cooperation with Iran.”
    In the memo, Roche expressed frustration at the failure of the more Iran-focused strategy to carry the day. “Opportunities in this area have so far been allowed to slip away,” he wrote. “None of them got off the ground and Bud MacFarlane [sic] who presided over them has departed.”
    After reading Eagleburger’s terse reaction to Roche’s memo, Wolfowitz wrote, “I perhaps should have made clearer from the outset that we recognize the immense danger Iran poses to our Arab friends in the [Persian] Gulf, and the need to contain it. We are by no means recommending a ‘tilt’ towards Iran at this moment.”
    Instead, U.S. policy on the Iran-Iraq War would begin to move in the opposite direction as President Reagan grew worried that Iran was gaining the upper hand in the war and might actually defeat Iraq. To prevent that possibility, Reagan authorized a “tilt” toward Iraq in June 1982, according to a sworn affidavit filed in a 1995 criminal case by a Reagan NSC aide, Howard Teicher.
    Teicher described a highly classified National Security Decision Directive that called for providing intelligence assistance to Iraq and directing the CIA to help Saddam Hussein’s army secure third-country military supplies, a project that fell largely to CIA Director William Casey and his deputy, Robert Gates.
    Though the tilt toward Iraq represented a blow to the neocons, who shared the Israeli position of viewing Iraq as the greater of Israel’s two enemies, the Reagan administration’s favoritism toward Iraq didn’t put an end to the McFarlane-Wolfowitz initiatives.
    The Israelis also never stopped scouring the world for weapons to sell to Iran. When McFarlane was promoted to become Reagan’s third National Security Advisor in October 1983, he was in even a stronger position to push the Israel-favored position regarding openings toward Iran. McFarlane finally succeeded in persuading Reagan to sign on to the strategic cooperation agreement that he had hammered out with Kimche.
    “I was able to get the President to approve it in writing and to get it translated into a formal memorandum of understanding between the Pentagon and the Israeli defense ministry, which would form a joint political-military group to serve as the instrument for developing a broader agenda of cooperation,” McFarlane wrote in his memoir [p. 187].
    In a now-declassified top-secret cable dated Dec. 20, 1983, McFarlane responded to a complaint from U.S. Ambassador to Great Britain Charles H. Price, who believed that the agreement was a last-minute scheme to “give the store” to Israel.
    McFarlane insisted the strategic arrangement was the culmination of a thorough review process. McFarlane described the U.S.-Israeli security agreement as encouraging cooperation with third countries, “with special reference to Turkey,” as well as setting aside resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict in favor of pursuing other strategic collaboration with Israel.
    “The President acknowledges that our ability to defend vital interests in Near East and South Asia would be enhanced by the resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict,” McFarlane said in the cable. “Nevertheless, in recognition of Israel’s strategic location, its developed base infrastructure and the quality and inter-operability of the Israeli military forces, it was decided to resume cooperative paramilitary planning with Israel, expanding on the work begun earlier.”
    An International Arms Bazaar
    Besides tapping into stockpiles of U.S.-made weaponry, the Israelis arranged shipments from third countries, including Poland, according to Israeli intelligence officer Ari Ben-Menashe, who described his work on the arms pipeline in his 1992 book, Profits of War.
    Ex-Israeli intelligence officer Ari Ben-Menashe. (Photo from his memoir, Profits of War.)
    Ex-Israeli intelligence officer Ari Ben-Menashe. (Photo from his memoir, Profits of War.)
    Since representatives of Likud had initiated the arms-middleman role for Iran, the profits flowed into coffers that the right-wing party controlled, a situation that allowed Likud to invest in Jewish settlements in the West Bank and created envy inside the rival Labor Party especially after it gained a share of power in the 1984 elections, said Ben-Menashe, who worked with Likud.
    According to this analysis, Labor’s desire to open its own arms channel to Iran laid the groundwork for the Iran-Contra scandal, as the government of Prime Minister Shimon Peres tapped into the emerging neoconservative network inside the Reagan administration on one hand and began making his own contacts to Iran’s leadership on the other.
    Reagan’s National Security Adviser Robert McFarlane collaborated with Peres’s aide Amiram Nir and with neocon intellectual (and National Security Council consultant) Michael Ledeen in spring 1985 to make contact with the Iranians. Ledeen’s chief intermediary to Iran was a businessman named Manucher Ghorbanifar, who was held in disdain by the CIA as a fabricator but claimed he represented high-ranking Iranians who favored improved relations with the United States and were eager for American weapons.
    Ghorbanifar’s chief contact, as identified in official Iran-Contra records, was Mohsen Kangarlu, who worked as an aide to Prime Minister Mir Hussein Mousavi, according to Israeli journalist Ronen Bergman in his 2008 book, The Secret War with Iran. However, Ghorbanifar’s real backer inside Iran appears to have been Mousavi himself. According to a Time magazine article from January 1987, Ghorbanifar “became a trusted friend and kitchen adviser to Mir Hussein Mousavi, Prime Minister in the Khomeini government.”
    As Ben-Menashe described the maneuvering in Tehran, the basic split in the Iranian leadership put then-President Ali Khamenei on the ideologically purist side of rejecting U.S.-Israeli military help and senior political figures Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, Mehdi Karoubi and Mousavi in favor of exploiting those openings in a pragmatic way to better fight the war with Iraq.
    The key decider during this period was Ayatollah Khomeini, who agreed with the pragmatists on the need to get as much materiel from the Americans and the Israelis as possible, Ben-Menashe told me in a 2009 interview from his home in Canada.
    The stage was set for the next phase of this tighter U.S.-Israeli collaboration, the Iran-Contra Affair. Again, McFarlane’s Israeli friend, David Kimche, was a chief collaborator. As McFarlane describes the Iran-Contra origins in Special Trust, Kimche visited him at the White House on July 3, 1985, to ask whether a National Security Council consultant (and neocon activist) Michael Ledeen was speaking for the administration when he approached Israeli officials with questions about internal Iranian divisions.
    McFarlane confirmed that he had dispatched Ledeen, according to the book, and Kimche mentioned Iranian dissidents who were in contact with Israelis and who might be able to demonstrate their “bona fides” to the United States by gaining the release of American hostages then being held by pro-Iranian militants in Lebanon. [pp. 17-20]
    Soon, McFarlane found himself at the center of a new round of secret arms sales to Iran via Israel, although these were authorized directly by President Reagan in what became an arms-for-hostage swap with a geopolitical veneer.
    Even after stepping down as National Security Advisor in December 1985, McFarlane continued to participate in these Iranian arms sales, as the operation also evolved into a scheme for enriching some of the participants and generating profits that were diverted to the Nicaraguan Contra rebels.
    According to one of the declassified documents, the Reagan administration’s expectation of Israeli cooperation in such paramilitary operations extended to a request from NSC aide Oliver North to Israeli Defense Minister Yitzhak Rabin to supply hundreds of AK-47s to the Contras in September 1986.
    “North told Rabin that the United States was out of funds to support the Contras,” according to a secret cable from U.S. Ambassador to Israel Thomas Pickering. “North said he was aware of the fact that Israel had in its possession some 400-600 AK-47 rifles which he, North, would like to see provided to the Contras. Rabin asked if North was thinking of a gift and North replied that he was. …
    “Later, it was decided in the affirmative and the weapons were made available for shipment. Rabin insisted, however, that he would only provide the weapons to the United States, not directly to any other recipient. What the United States then did with the weapons was its own business.
    “In October, the weapons were loaded on a ship and the ship departed Israel. However, the story began to break and the ship was returned to Israel and the weapons unloaded here. Rabin wanted us to know that the conversation had taken place.”
    In November 1986, the convoluted Iran-Contra scandal exploded into public view, forcing the dismissal of North and National Security Advisor John Poindexter and prompting both criminal and congressional investigations. Embarrassed by the catastrophe that he helped create, McFarlane attempted suicide by taking an overdose of valium on Feb. 9, 1987, but survived.
    In 1988, McFarlane pleaded guilty to four misdemeanor counts of concealing information from Congress, but he was pardoned – along with five other Iran-Contra defendants – on Christmas Eve 1992 by President George H.W. Bush, who himself had come under investigation for his role in the secret operations and the cover-up.
    Ultimately, the investigations into Iran-Contra and related scandals – including the October Surprise allegations of a secret Reagan-Iran deal in 1980 to stop Carter from resolving that earlier hostage crisis, and Iraqgate, the secret arms sales to Iraq – failed to get to the bottom of the secret policies. Republican cover-ups largely succeeded. [For the latest on these cover-ups, see Robert Parry’s America’s Stolen Narrative.]
    Long-Term Consequences
    The long-term consequences of the Reagan administration’s secret dealing with Israel, Iran and Iraq have resonated to the present day. During the Iran-Iraq War – with both sides bolstered by outside arms deliveries – the conflict continued until 1988 with a death toll estimated at about one million. Over the next several years, the alliance of convenience between Israel and Iran began to sour with the two countries drifting toward becoming the bitter enemies that they are today.
    Meanwhile, Iraq – strapped by its war debts – invaded Kuwait in 1990 in a dispute over money and oil. President George H.W. Bush responded with the Persian Gulf War, driving Saddam Hussein’s army out of Kuwait and putting the Iraqi dictator in the top tier of U.S. “enemies.”
    To carry out the assault on Iraqi forces in 1991, Bush arranged for the United States to secure military bases in Saudi Arabia, a move that infuriated Saudi jihadist Osama bin Laden. Though bin Laden had sided with the United States in the war to drive Soviet troops from Afghanistan in the 1980s, bin Laden soon became a sworn enemy of the Americans.
    Further, the high-tech capabilities of the modern U.S. military, as displayed in the Persian Gulf War, were so extraordinary that the neocons came to believe that the new weapons systems had qualitatively changed the nature of warfare, enabling the United States to dictate policies across a “uni-polar world” by force or the threat of force, especially after the Soviet Union disintegrated in late 1991.
    The new U.S. triumphalist attitude was reflected in a draft of the Defense Planning Guidance, dated Feb. 18, 1992, and authored by then-Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Paul Wolfowitz and his deputy. I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby. The policy draft envisioned a U.S.-dominated world in which “unilateral” and preemptive military actions were justified to prevent any potential threat from another nation or the prospect of any country rising to challenge American hegemony.
    After the draft was leaked to The New York Times, the document came under criticism as “imperialist” and was subsequently watered down before being publicly released. However, its chief tenets remained central to the neocon vision of unrivaled American global power. No longer would there be annoying negotiations with troublesome countries. For such “rogue” states, “regime change” would be the prescription.
    Though the policy paper was written by George H.W. Bush’s administration, many of its precepts were followed by President Bill Clinton and his administration, albeit without some of the more extreme bombast. Clinton also resisted neocon demands that he invade Iraq, but he still imposed a harsh embargo, ordered airstrikes and made Saddam Hussein’s ouster a goal of U.S. policy.
    When five Republicans on the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the popular will in Election 2000 and put George W. Bush into the White House, Wolfowitz, Libby and other neocons returned to power, too. They were convinced that they could remake the Middle East through a strategy of “regime change,” starting with a grudge match against Saddam Hussein and then moving on to Iran and Syria.
    The overriding goal – favored by the new generation of Likud led by Benjamin Netanyahu – was to create a new reality that would let Israel set its territorial boundaries with little regard for the Palestinians or other Arab neighbors.
    This grand opportunity presented itself after bin Laden’s al-Qaeda terrorists struck at New York and Washington on Sept. 11, 2001. Though the fact that al-Qaeda was based in Afghanistan forced Bush to first attack that country, he quickly followed the neocon advice and pivoted toward Iraq and Saddam Hussein.
    The neocons helped Bush concoct a case against Iraq, claiming that it was hiding stockpiles of WMD and was collaborating with al-Qaeda. Neither point was true, but the aggressive propaganda campaign – unencumbered by much skepticism from the mainstream media – rallied Congress and the American people behind the invasion of Iraq, which Bush announced on March 19, 2003.
    The U.S.-led invasion force toppled Saddam Hussein’s government in three weeks but the neocon-organized occupation under Paul Bremer proved to be a disaster. An insurgency ensued and the country became virtually ungovernable. Nearly 4,500 American soldiers died along with hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. The total cost to the U.S. Treasury is estimated at about $1 trillion and the United States ended up with little to show for the war after U.S. troops were compelled to withdraw at the end of 2011.
    Yet, despite the Iraq disaster, the neocons continued to press for additional military conflicts seeking “regime change” in Syria and Iran. But long forgotten was how Israel and the neocons of the Reagan administration secretly sustained Iran’s Islamic republic during the Iran-Iraq War.

    Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America’s Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and barnesandnoble.com). You also can order Robert Parry’s trilogy on the Bush Family and its connections to various right-wing operatives for only $34. The trilogy includes America’s Stolen Narrative. For details on this offer, click here.