De Israelische Terreur 971

http://www.daily.pk/will-tel-aviv-take-the-u-s-to-war-again-12104/


Will Tel Aviv take the U.S. to war, Again?
Written by David Miller Smith World Oct 12, 2009

Tel Aviv long ago proved its mastery at waging war “by way of
deception” – the operative credo of the Mossad, Israel’s intelligence
and foreign operations directorate. Yet its latest operation reveals a need
to freshen up its repertoire of dirty tricks. As Israel’s patron, those
of us who live in the U.S. are painfully familiar with such duplicity. Yet
the recent frequency of its frauds renders their latest treachery
remarkably transparent.

Consider the similarities. First a network of pro-Israelis fixed the
intelligence that induced us to invade Iraq in support of an expansionist
agenda for Greater Israel. Who can forget Iraqi WMD, scary images of
mushroom clouds and secret meetings in Prague? Who can fail to recall the
yellowcake uranium from Niger and those ominous warnings of “high-level
contacts” between secular Baghdad and the religious fundamentalists of Al
Qaeda?

Even Colin Powell was duped when pro-Israelis in the G.W. Bush
administration associated his credibility with false UN testimony avowing
Iraqi mobile biological weapons laboratories. Though all was deception, it
had the intended effect. To others, it looked like the U.S. was at fault.
Yet our policy-makers are no better than the information on which they must
rely—and the allies they are persuaded to trust.

The same old Israeli duplicity is back but with a new twist. And,
importantly, ably aided by a new commander-in-chief. As with the deception
that induced the invasion of Iraq, war in Iran also requires weaving a web
of consensus beliefs from threads of deceit.

This time there is less emphasis on fixed intelligence than on false
impressions—albeit with the same goal: to advance an Israeli agenda.
Though Tel Aviv’s goals for Iran are now within reach, the success of
this latest operation is not yet assured.

* The cast

The stage-managing of this presidency has been a wonder to behold—even
when compared with G.W. Bush. This latest production involves two key
insiders, both Jewish. Rahm Emanuel, son of an Irgun operative and the most
influential chief of staff in decades, served in the Israel Defense Forces
during the 1991 Gulf War. Communications Director David Axelrod oversaw a
campaign strategy that garnered 78% of the Jewish vote.

It’s not difficult to imagine the source of the chutzpah that flew Obama
from a speech in Cairo—meant to mollify Muslims—directly to a Holocaust
photo-op at a death camp in Germany. Communication-wise, which event left
the deeper impression? Was that trip meant for the 1.3 billion Muslims
miffed at six decades of U.S. support for Israel’s occupation of
Palestine? Or did these presidential image-makers aim to please the
American Ashkenazim that fondly refer to Barack Obama as “the first
Jewish president”?

Who but pro-Israeli insiders could insert in a UN speech by the first Black
president a racist reference to “the Jewish state of Israel”? That code
phrase was certain to provoke Muslims worldwide, particularly those whose
lands Israel occupies. Even Harry Truman, a political product of Kansas
City’s corrupt Pendergast political machine, deleted that theocratic and
racist reference when, in May 1948, he extended U.S. recognition to an
enclave of violent Jewish extremists soon after they ethnically cleansed
400-plus Palestinian villages.

* The plot

So now comes a new twist on an old trick. First Barack Obama was persuaded
by his advisers to lambast Iran for a covert nuclear site—days after it
was revealed by Tehran. So already it looks to the public like yet another
U.S. president is relying on flawed intelligence. When Iran promised
cooperation with international inspectors, Tel Aviv quickly countered that
Israel may well attack anyway. Why not? After all, the US attacked Iraq.
And clearly U.S. intelligence is no better now than then, right?

So what if Iran, like Iraq, has no WMD? That misses the point. A
nuclear-armed “Jewish state” of five million can still attack a Muslim
nation of 75 million using U.S.-provided, laser-guided bunker-buster bombs.
Tel Aviv can then point to the similarity of its patron’s conduct when
the U.S. launched a preemptive attack based on false intelligence.

Winning is not the point. There is no military solution in the Middle East.
The point is to create yet another crisis and yet another provocation. And,
importantly, to once again make the U.S. appear guilty by association.
Absent another crisis that misdirects attention and consumes scarce
intelligence resources, Americans will soon enough be forced to confront an
uncomfortable fact: Israel, its lobby and its supporters deceived us to
wage its wars.

Americans are not stupid. We are, however, perilously misinformed. Yet that
too traces to pro-Israelis in mainstream media. Absent another crisis,
Americans may well awaken to the essential role played by a complicit media
in these serial deceptions.

* The consequences

Iran is not about nuclear weapons. Neither was Iraq. Iran is about the need
for serial well-timed crises to advance Israel’s expansionist agenda. No
one dares bring that agenda to a vote. Or even mention it. Thus the
treachery required of those whose numbers are few but whose ambitions are
great. What choice do they have but to wage war by way of deception?

Yet this time Americans are more aware of how such duplicity can progress
in plain sight. They have access to Internet news. Wade through the online
clutter and the analyses found there can expose the common source of this
deceit, including its media support.

Plus Americans are hurting. They know something is fundamentally amiss. Yet
they are understandably wary of conspiracy theories. They want facts. As
the facts point to a common source for much of what is wrong, those
complicit are scrambling to obscure that source. That scrambling, in turn,
is making that source steadily more transparent.

To date, this political product of Chicago’s Ashkenazim has been a
catastrophe for national security. And for an economy poised to decline at
an accelerating pace. Yet he’s ideal for those skilled at waging war on
nations from within. And for those proficient at inducing us to freely
embrace the very forces that now imperil our freedom.

We Americans may persist on this path, seduced by the allure of empty
eloquence. Or we could awaken. If so, this latest president could find
that, like recent predecessors, his legacy is relegated to infamy. Given
the course Obama has set, Americans may yet take matters into their own
hands to protect what he is allowing this purported ally to imperil.