The Chaos In Iraq Is By DESIGN

George Washington's picture

Neoconservatives like Paul Wolfowitz planned regime change in Iraq more than 20 years ago … in 1991.

But the goal wasn’t just regime change (or oil).  The goal was to break up the country, and to do away with the sovereignty of Iraq as a separate nation.

The Guardian noted in 2003:

President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt predicted devastating consequences for the Middle East if Iraq is attacked. “We fear a state of disorder and chaos may prevail in the region,” he said.




They are probably still splitting their sides with laughter in the Pentagon. But Mr Mubarak and the [Pentagon] hawks do agree on one thing: war with Iraq could spell disaster for several regimes in the Middle East. Mr Mubarak believes that would be bad. The hawks, though, believe it would be good.


For the hawks, disorder and chaos sweeping through the region would not be an unfortunate side-effect of war with Iraq, but a sign that everything is going according to plan.




The “skittles theory” of the Middle East – that one ball aimed at Iraq can knock down several regimes – has been around for some time on the wilder fringes of politics but has come to the fore in the United States on the back of the “war against terrorism”.


Its roots can be traced, at least in part, to a paper published in 1996 by an Israeli thinktank, the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies. Entitled “A clean break: a new strategy for securing the realm”, it was intended as a political blueprint for the incoming government of Binyamin Netanyahu. As the title indicates, it advised the right-wing Mr Netanyahu to make a complete break with the past by adopting a strategy “based on an entirely new intellectual foundation, one that restores strategic initiative and provides the nation the room to engage every possible energy on rebuilding Zionism …”




The paper set out a plan by which Israel would “shape its strategic environment”, beginning with the removal of Saddam Hussein and the installation of a Hashemite monarchy in Baghdad.


With Saddam out of the way and Iraq thus brought under Jordanian Hashemite influence, Jordan and Turkey would form an axis along with Israel to weaken and “roll back” Syria. Jordan, it suggested, could also sort out Lebanon by “weaning” the Shia Muslim population away from Syria and Iran, and re-establishing their former ties with the Shia in the new Hashemite kingdom of Iraq. “Israel will not only contain its foes; it will transcend them”, the paper concluded.




The leader of the “prominent opinion makers” who wrote it was Richard Perle – now chairman of the Defence Policy Board at the Pentagon.


Also among the eight-person team was Douglas Feith, a neo-conservative lawyer, who now holds one of the top four posts at the Pentagon as under-secretary of policy.




Two other opinion-makers in the team were David Wurmser and his wife, Meyrav (see US thinktanks give lessons in foreign policy, August 19). Mrs Wurmser was co-founder of Memri, a Washington-based charity that distributes articles translated from Arabic newspapers portraying Arabs in a bad light. After working with Mr Perle at the American Enterprise Institute, David Wurmser is now at the State Department, as a special assistant to John Bolton, the under-secretary for arms control and international security.


A fifth member of the team was James Colbert, of the Washington-based Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (Jinsa) – a bastion of neo-conservative hawkery whose advisory board was previously graced by Dick Cheney (now US vice-president), John Bolton and Douglas Feith.




With several of the “Clean Break” paper’s authors now holding key positions in Washington, the plan for Israel to “transcend” its foes by reshaping the Middle East looks a good deal more achievable today than it did in 1996. Americans may even be persuaded to give up their lives to achieve it.

(Before assuming prominent roles in the Bush administration, many of the same people – including Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Dick Cheney, John Bolton and others – advocated their imperial views during the Clinton administration via their American think tank, the “Project for a New American Century”.)

Thomas Harrington – professor of Iberian Studies at Trinity College in Hartford, Connecticut – writes:

[While there are some good articles on the chaos in Iraq, none of them] consider whether the chaos now enveloping the region might, in fact, be the desired aim of policy planners in Washington and Tel Aviv.




One of the prime goals of every empire is to foment ongoing internecine conflict in the territories whose resources and/or strategic outposts they covet.




The most efficient way of sparking such open-ended internecine conflict is to brutally smash the target country’s social matrix and physical infrastructure.




Ongoing unrest has the additional perk of justifying the maintenance and expansion of the military machine that feeds the financial and political fortunes of the metropolitan elite.


In short … divide and rule is about as close as it gets to a universal recourse the imperial game and that it is, therefore, as important to bear it in mind today as it was in the times of Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, the Spanish Conquistadors and the British Raj.


To those—and I suspect there are still many out there—for whom all this seems too neat or too conspiratorial, I would suggest a careful side-by side reading of:


a) the “Clean Break” manifesto generated by the Jerusalem-based Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies (IASPS) in 1996




b) the “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” paper generated by The Project for a New American Century (PNAC) in 2000, a US group with deep personal and institutional links to the aforementioned Israeli think tank, and with the ascension of  George Bush Junior to the White House, to the most exclusive  sanctums of the US foreign policy apparatus.


To read the cold-blooded imperial reasoning in both of these documents—which speak, in the first case, quite openly of the need to destabilize the region so as to reshape Israel’s “strategic environment” and, in the second of the need to dramatically increase the number of US “forward bases” in the region ….


To do so now, after the US’s systematic destruction of Iraq and Libya—two notably oil-rich countries whose delicate ethnic and religious balances were well known to anyone in or out of government with more than passing interest in history—, and after the its carefully calibrated efforts to generate and maintain murderous and civilization-destroying stalemates in Syria and Egypt (something that is easily substantiated despite our media’s deafening silence on the subject), is downright blood-curdling.


And yet, it seems that for even very well-informed analysts, it is beyond the pale to raise the possibility that foreign policy elites in the US and Israel, like all virtually all the ambitious hegemons before them on the world stage, might have quite coldly and consciously fomented open-ended chaos in order to achieve their overlapping strategic objectives in this part of the world.

Antiwar’s Justin Raimondo notes:

Iraq’s fate was sealed from the moment we invaded: it has no future as a unitary state. As I pointed out again and again in the early days of the conflict, Iraq is fated to split apart into at least three separate states: the Shi’ite areas around Baghdad and to the south, the Sunni regions to the northwest, and the Kurdish enclave which was itching for independence since well before the US invasion. This was the War Party’s real if unexpressed goal from the very beginning: the atomization of Iraq, and indeed the entire Middle East. Their goal, in short, was chaos – and that is precisely what we are seeing today.




As I put it years ago:


“[T]he actual purpose was to blow the country to smithereens: to atomize it, and crush it, so that it would never rise again.


“When we invaded and occupied Iraq, we didn’t just militarily defeat Iraq’s armed forces – we dismantled their army, and their police force, along with all the other institutions that held the country together. The educational system was destroyed, and not reconstituted. The infrastructure was pulverized, and never restored. Even the physical hallmarks of a civilized society – roads, bridges, electrical plants, water facilities, museums, schools – were bombed out of existence or else left to fall into disrepair. Along with that, the spiritual and psychological infrastructure that enables a society to function – the bonds of trust, allegiance, and custom – was dissolved, leaving Iraqis to fend for themselves in a war of all against all.


“… What we are witnessing in post-Saddam Iraq is the erasure of an entire country. We can say, with confidence: We came, we saw, we atomized.”


Why? This is the question that inevitably arises in the wake of such an analysis: why deliberately destroy an entire country whose people were civilized while our European ancestors were living in trees?


The people who planned, agitated for, and executed this war are the very same people who have advanced Israeli interests – at America’s expense – at every opportunity. In “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm,” a 1996 document prepared by a gaggle of neocons – Perle, Douglas Feith, James Colbert, Charles Fairbanks, Jr., Robert Loewenberg, David Wurmser, and Meyrav Wurmser – Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was urged to “break out” of Israel’s alleged stagnation and undertake a campaign of “regime change” across the Middle East, targeting Lebanon, Libya, Syria, Iraq, and eventually Iran. With the exception of Iran – and that one’s still cooking on the back burner – this is precisely what has occurred. In 2003, in the immediate wake of our Pyrrhic “victory” in Iraq, then Prime Minister Ariel Sharon declared to a visiting delegation of American members of Congress that these “rogue states” – Iran, Libya, and Syria – would have to be next on the War Party’s target list.


And Michel Chossudovsky points out:

The division of Iraq along sectarian-ethnic lines has been on the drawing board of the Pentagon for more than 10 years.


What is envisaged by Washington is the outright suppression of the Baghdad regime and the institutions of the central government, leading to a process of political fracturing and the elimination of Iraq as a country.


This process of political fracturing in Iraq along sectarian lines will inevitably have an impact on Syria, where the US-NATO sponsored terrorists have in large part been defeated.


Destabilization and political fragmentation in Syria is also contemplated: Washington’s intent is no longer to pursue the narrow objective of “regime change” in Damascus. What is contemplated is the break up of both Iraq and Syria along sectarian-ethnic lines.


The formation of the caliphate may be the first step towards a broader conflict in the Middle East, bearing in mind that Iran is supportive of the al-Maliki government and the US ploy may indeed be to encourage the intervention of Iran.


The proposed re-division of both Iraq and Syria is broadly modeled on that of the Federation of Yugoslavia which was split up into seven “independent states” (Serbia, Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Macedonia (FYRM), Slovenia, Montenegro, Kosovo).


According to Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, the re division of Iraq into three separate states is part of a broader process of redrawing the Map of the Middle East.

The above map was prepared by Lieutenant-Colonel Ralph Peters. It was published in the Armed Forces Journal in June 2006, Peters is a retired colonel of the U.S. National War Academy. (Map Copyright Lieutenant-Colonel Ralph Peters 2006).


Although the map does not officially reflect Pentagon doctrine, it has been used in a training program at NATO’s Defense College for senior military officers”. (See Plans for Redrawing the Middle East: The Project for a “New Middle East” By Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, Global Research, November 2006)

Notes: While a senior Bush adviser said that the Iraq war was launched to protect Israel, that is too simplistic an explanation. The architects of foreign policy in both the U.S. and Israel are either literally one and the same – e.g. Richard Perle – or see things identically.

And if you think things are different under the Obama administration, please note that not only are the Neocons back, they never actually left.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
RMolineaux's picture

This item captures very well the sum total of the various separate interests involved in the destruction of Iraq as a nation state.  These separate interests do not always run parallel.  But they may be itemized as follows: 

1. Israel´s desire to remove the threat of a secular, well armed rival.

2. The desire of Brzezinski and his followers to weaken Russia (the central continental power) at every possible opportunity.

3.  The desire of the Wahhabi regime of Saudi Arabia and its allies to remove a secular leader and his threat to regimes based on religious fanaticism and a medieval feudal social structure.

4.  The desire of the US Petro/Banking oligarchy to maintain the US dollar as the world reserve currency.

5.  The desire of Pentagon theoreticians to expand their world-wide colonial system in alliance with the military-industrial complex.

In evaluating these interests, we should keep in mind that the populaton of Iraq has no experience of constitutional democracy in a nation state.  The prerequisites for such a state are loyalty to the nation and acceptance of the responsibilities of citizenship.  These are not learned in one generation.  The loyalties of an Iraqi are to his family, clan, tribe and sect.  Any secular leader can retain his power only through the ruthless suppression of rivals.  Thus Hussain, Assad and Ghaddafi came to power.  But as a matter of practical politics they used non-violent methods whenever they produced the desired result.  Ghaddafi oversaw the construction of an enormous water supply system.  Hussein placated the Kurdish minority by setting up their own university in Suleimaniah.  Assad protects the religious minorities.   All three regimes represented what can be expected in the current status of their peoples.  Is their any legitimate reason for a distant nation to become involved in their internal politics?  Most emphatically not.

novictim's picture

This article gives WAY too much credit to Wolfowitz and Pearle.

Anybody who spends a few hours understanding the Sykes-Picot agreement of 1915 must conclude that the three state solution to "Iraq" represents the lowest state of conflict.  

Even without a direct historical reference to Sykes-Picot, a cursory glance over the sectarian violence in the headlines draws you to the idea that the present day country "Iraq" is not sustainable.

Only a tyrant like Sadam could have kept the lid on it...but who would want that to continue??  I argued against BOTH Iraq wars, BTW.  Yet I cannot say that deposing Saddam was a bad thing.

I've argued this position since 2001.  There is nothing wrong with busting up Iraq.  Why not do so and then sell arms to all three sides (Kurds, Arab Shiites, Sunis)?

rwe2late's picture

The level of political understanding expressed in many comments made at ZH is pathetic.

A few insist there is nothing wrong with US foreign policies at all. They believe the US is just fighting "terror".
A few others conclude what is wrong for them is that the US doesn't kill enough people, especially in the Mid-East.

Many others deny US leaders have global full-spectrum and militarist ambitions, namely to contain/dominate Russia and China, and thereby control the resources, markets, and finances of the world. 

Many comments express exasperation at the expenditures of life and money, the contradictions of public war propaganda, and the seeming inconsistencies of shifting alliances in the ME. But, lacking any real cynicism about US motives, commenters  invent excuses for what they perceive to be a "mess" in the ME, compartmentalized from all other US ambitions.
It is all a "mistake", supposedly made because US leaders, analysts, advisors are so "stupid", so "dumb", those leaders et al  don't know what they are doing. Since they are believed not to have a plan, it is impossible that what they do fits intelligently within a plan.

Or, alternatively some believe, the leaders have a "plan", but it cannot be a made-in-the-US plan. Because the US supposedly doesn't have a global plan of its own, what is done is thought done separate from US interests. Thus the US is in the ME, not for controlling oil, pipelines, the petrodollar, or containing Russia and China, but actually only to aid the Zionist ambitions of Israeli leaders.
In sum, for those naive believers in US innocence, the US would not be in any ME "mess" except for the "Jews".

(And a smaller few, using comparable arguments, contend US foreign policy problems arise because Obama is a closet "Muslim", or Hillary a "dyke", or because Kerry is "gay".)

Everyone should instead recognize and connect the global ambitions and hubris repeatedly expressed by Brzezinski and others with the problematic US activities throughout the world, including in the Mid-East.

3rd Pig's picture


I love this - Brand is on fire

When the MSM turns on the pres like this – its goodnight Irene – I give him a week.

The last time I saw this kind of tirade from the MSM at a leader was Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd just before Julia Gillard stuck a knife in his back.

Expect Hillary in the Whitehouse any day now.


Grouchy Marx's picture

I wish I had some mechanism for ascertaining the veracity of all the facts and allegations of this article, but I don't. At face value, it does strike me as being more of a conspiracy-theory, "see the demons behind every bush", see the horse in the Rohrsach inkblots kind of article than what I have come to expect from GW.

If it's all or mostly true, then it fits with this nation's constant and arrogant ineptitude in foreign affairs meddling. (Matching the same ineptitude in internal social and economic meddling.)

Unfortunately, power always attracts the most corrupt, who then concentrate power, attracting more corrupt people, and the vicious feedback loop continues. 

America was lost with Lincoln's departure from Constitutional government. In holding together the Republic, he destroyed its foundation.

strannick's picture

Washingtons best. Bravau. An opus. Chaos isn't the unfortunate side effect, but the intended consequence. Stop the Iran.Iraq.Syria. pipeline at all costs. If this isn't obscenely obvious, time to go back to Time magazine.

The Most Interesting Frog in the World's picture

Totally concur with your comments, in particular with regards to Lincoln. I have thought this for some time and would love to see expansion of this. Do you have recommendation with regards to writings on this matter?

Grouchy Marx's picture

What first opened my eyes to Lincoln's failings was Ken Burns' excellent video series on the Civil War. I was raised in PA, and grew up believing the propaganda that he was one of the greatest Presidents.


hootowl's picture

Exactly.  Remember, Ovomit declared he wanted to be another Lincoln.  He is as lawless as Lincoln was.

jack stephan's picture

Rip Eli Wallach, just had to inject that

blindman's picture

ok, where is wb7?

moneybots's picture

"And Michel Chossudovsky points out:

The division of Iraq along sectarian-ethnic lines has been on the drawing board of the Pentagon for more than 10 years."


Well, the military commanders wanted to keep 20,000 troops in Iraq in 2011.   How did they not get the supposed word from The Pentagon that Iraq was to be divided along sectarian lines?

why would bush have even bothered with the surge or kept troops in iraq after 2003, if the intent was to divide iraq along sectarian lines?

Blazed's picture
A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties(February 1982)

"Iraq, rich in oil on the one hand and internally torn on the other, is guaranteed as a candidate for Israel's targets. Its dissolution is even more important for us than that of Syria. Iraq is stronger than Syria. In the short run it is Iraqi power which constitutes the greatest threat to Israel. An Iraqi-Iranian war will tear Iraq apart and cause its downfall at home even before it is able to organize a struggle on a wide front against us. Every kind of inter-Arab confrontation will assist us in the short run and will shorten the way to the more important aim of breaking up Iraq into denominations as in Syria and in Lebanon. In Iraq, a division into provinces along ethnic/religious lines as in Syria during Ottoman times is possible. So, three (or more) states will exist around the three major cities: Basra, Baghdad and Mosul, and Shi'ite areas in the south will separate from the Sunni and Kurdish north. It is possible that the present Iranian-Iraqi confrontation will deepen this polarization."

Eretz Israel

hootowl's picture

Such planning as is promulgated by the Tribal decepticons is above the pay grade of generals.

Whitehall's picture

The current boundaries have been metastable since they were created after WWI. Just as a less diverse population would make for greater political stability in the US, likewise, a rearrangement of borders in the ME would help stabilize the area in many ways. Aspirant regional hegemons like Iran or Saddam would remain troublesome.

Having a more stable ME full of "happier Arabs" seems to be in the interest of both Israel AND America. We have a common interest and are allies.

I'd say that this continued morphing of "countries" has been a scenario that any analyst or diplomat with foresight would have considered.

The real question is what to do about it in real time - now! We should have no interest in southern Iraq getting absorbed into a great Persia and still need to buffer our Saudi king and Gulf emirates "friends" from incursion. Obama may have deliberately blew it with removing our troops in 2009.

I'm good with air power and advisors - for now.

Keep the oil flowing, please!

moneybots's picture

"This was the War Party’s real if unexpressed goal from the very beginning: the atomization of Iraq, and indeed the entire Middle East"


If that was the case, Bush would have just pulled the troops out right after toppling Saddam, as that would have insured chaos.

AnAnonymous's picture

That is an 'american' thing to be made.

The reality is that 'americans' need to social engineer the situation to reach the point of the split of division along ethnic lines. It wont come by itself. This division along ethnic lines is an 'american' fantasy projected over the middle east area to satisfy domestic demand.

Claiming that chaos would have performed the job is an 'american' claim that is based on nothing but whimsical thinking.

Iraq had a functional state before the invasion, state that required to be destroyed in order for the 'american' plan of division to succeed. That is why 'americans' maintain the occupation the required time to destroy the state apparatus. When the job was done, they could leave, knowing that subsidizing a private army that would carry the project of division along ethnic lines would be enough to carry out the plan.
The Iraqi army would have back rolled ISIL in no time as the Iraqi state apparatus was still functional after the invasion.

If 'americans' had not destroyed the State apparatus beforehand, leaving as suggested, people coming after would have fought over the State apparatus to get control of it and to reform Iraq.

Iran, that is a close neighbour, would have taken an Iraq dominated by Shiites over getting the part occupied by shiites only.

'Americans' do as they can. And they could not leave before the job was done.

DavidPierre's picture

JIM WILLIE Fingers The Bush Regime: “These Are The Neo-Nazis Who Brought Us The 9/11 Attacks” — They Are Running Out of Cards To Play”

Neocon is just a nice word for Neo-Nazi. So people need to wake up. When Bush Junior hit the office of the White House and his gang of Neocons came in with a lot of foreign passports (Note: Israeli passports), these were the Nazis. These were the Neo-Nazis who brought us 9/11. I fully believe they’re key players behind the 9/11 attacks.”

hootowl's picture

"I fully believe they’re key players behind the 9/11 attacks.”

And they used the institutions of our own government to pull it off and cover it up.

The official version of 9-11 is nonsensical.  The evidence of intense U.S. Government involvement is overwhelmng.

It is time for secession and reset.......for many, many, reasons.

blindman's picture

oh man,
27 June 2014
Have a Pleasant Weekend
Late at night, on a still summer's evening many years ago, a young boy's little Japanese made germanium 'crystal radio' clipped to the screw in the wall socket could pull down the 50,000 watt 'clear channel radio stations' from across the USA. Music, conversations, history, speeches, reports of wars and rumours of wars, the passing of great people, and always, the child-like dreams.
It's the little things that make life worth living." jca
comment: have you detected genius here? I have.

therevolutionwas's picture

Their goal was to smash Iraq so it will never rise again.  Who is to say that the three (or four, or five) regions that were once Iraq, would not unite for a commom purpose?  A confederacy so to speak.  United only for self defense.  That would be much, much stronger than an Iraq held together by a mere dictator. 

BullyBearish's picture
Hillary Clinton and
the Israel Lobby

by Joshua Frank

George W. Bush's position on Iran is "disturbing" and "dangerous," reads a position paper written in late 2005 by American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). One year ago the Bush administration accepted a Russian proposal to allow Iran to continue to develop nuclear energy under Russian supervision. Needless to say, AIPAC wasn't the least bit happy about the compromise.

In a letter to congressional allies, mostly Democrats, the pro-Israel organization admitted it was "concerned that the decision not to go to the Security Council, combined with the U.S. decision to support the 'Russian proposal,' indicates a disturbing shift in the Administration's policy on Iran and poses a danger to the U.S. and our allies."

Israel, however, continues to develop a substantial nuclear arsenal. In 2000, the British Broadcasting Corporation reported that Israel has likely produced enough plutonium to make up to 200 nuclear weapons. So it is safe to say that Israel's bomb-building technologies are light years ahead of Iran's budding nuclear program. Yet Israel still won't admit they have capacity to produce such deadly weapons.

Meanwhile, as AIPAC and Israel pressure the U.S. government to force the Iran issue to the UN Security Council, Israel itself stands in violation of numerous UN resolutions dealing with the occupied territories of Palestine, including UN Resolution 1402, which in part calls on Israel to withdraw its military from all Palestinian cities at once.

AIPAC's hypocrisy is nauseating. The Goliath lobbying organization wants Iran to cease to procure nukes while the crimes of Israel continue to be ignored. So who is propping up AIPAC's hypocritical position? None other than Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York.

As one of the top Democratic recipients of pro-Israel funds for the 2006 election cycle, pocketing over $83,000, Clinton now has Iran in her cross hairs.

During a Hanukkah dinner speech delivered in December 2005, hosted by Yeshiva University, Clinton prattled, "I held a series of meetings with Israeli officials [last summer], including the prime minister and the foreign minister and the head of the [Israel Defense Forces], to discuss such challenges we confront. In each of these meetings, we talked at length about the dire threat posed by the potential of a nuclear-armed Iran, not only to Israel, but also to Europe and Russia. Just this week, the new president of Iran made further outrageous comments that attacked Israel's right to exist that are simply beyond the pale of international discourse and acceptability. During my meeting with Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, I was reminded vividly of the threats that Israel faces every hour of every day. … It became even more clear how important it is for the United States to stand with Israel…."

As Clinton embraces Israel's violence, as well as AIPAC's fraudulent posture on Iran, she simultaneously ignores the hostilities inflicted upon Palestine, as numerous Palestinians have been killed during the continued shelling of the Gaza Strip over the past year.

Clinton's silence toward Israel's brutality implies the senator will continue to support AIPAC's mission to occupy the whole of the occupied territories, as well as a war on Iran. AIPAC is correct – even President Bush appears to be a little sheepish when up against the warmongering of Hillary Clinton.

Hillary and her husband paid a visit to Israel in the fall of 2005. The former president was a featured speaker at a mass rally that marked the 10th anniversary of the assassination of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin. It was Hillary's second visit to Israel since she was elected to office in 2000.

The senator did manage to take time out of her tour to meet with the then semi-conscious Ariel Sharon to discuss "security matters." Hillary also made her way to the great apartheid wall, which separates Palestine from Israel. As the barrier is nearing completion, the monstrosity will ultimately stretch to over 400 miles in length.

Palestinians rightly criticize the obtrusive wall on the grounds that it cuts them off from occupied land in the West Bank. Thousands more will be cut off from their jobs, schools, and essential farmland.

Hillary and her pro-Israel buds don't get it. When you put powerless Palestinians behind a jail-like wall where life in any real economic sense is unattainable, you wreak pain and anguish, which in turn leads to more anger and resentment toward the Israeli government's brutal policies. Indeed, the wall will not prove to be a deterrent to resistance, but an incitement to defiance.

"This is not against the Palestinian people," Clinton said as she gazed over the massive wall. "This is against the terrorists. The Palestinian people have to help to prevent terrorism. They have to change the attitudes about terrorism."

The senator's comments seem as if they were taken word-for-word from an AIPAC position paper. They may well have been, as the lobby packs her coffers full of cash. In May 2005, Clinton spoke at an AIPAC conference where she praised the bonds between Israel and the United States:

"[O]ur future here in this country is intertwined with the future of Israel and the Middle East. Now there is a lot that we could talk about, and obviously much has been discussed. But in the short period that I have been given the honor of addressing you, I want to start by focusing on our deep and lasting bonds between the United States and Israel."

Clinton went on to address the importance of disarming Iran and Syria, as well as keeping troops in Iraq for as long as "it" takes. It was textbook warmongering, and surprise, surprise – Hillary got a standing ovation for her repertoire.

It is no matter that Iraq will never see true democracy. The U.S. won't allow that. Our government will never allow a free Iraq to form that embodies even the slightest disgust toward Israel or America. Democracy in Iraq, like democracy in Israel, has clear limitations.

Similar to her husband and the current president, Hillary Clinton will never alter the U.S.' Middle East policy that so blatantly favors Israeli interests.

kurt's picture

Control the Zioputians

world_debt_slave's picture

Must be important, headlined twice.

esum's picture

nay nay nay

what we are seeing in the middle east is not planned by the shit for brains we now have in DC...

it is the result of the ussa abandoning its leadership role....and the vacuum filling with the local debris... bendover barry meathead brennan  airhead clapper  ass kissing ball licking dempsey  handjob hagel swiftboat kerry and the foreign bitch who runs the show jarrett.... they dont know what the fuck they are doing... and are wandering about aimlessly... this is going to come across the tex mex border... in fact shit for brains bendover barry is practially inviting them in... bring your manpads and ak's... he is our second BENEDICT ARNOLD

TheReplacement's picture

I think most of us have no problem with us not interfering.  Unfortunately there are blaring signals that we are doing nothing of the kind.  We take arms from Libya (which we went to war with illegally) and send them to Syria so they can be used in Iraq and Afganistan against our own troops and our supposed allies and enemies. 

Our involvement is insane and it needs to stop.

SameAsItEverWas's picture

... The goal was to break up the country, and to do away with the sovereignty of Iraq as a separate nation.

Baloney.  Get your lingo right.  Yes, Iraq is now a country, and it can legitimately be termed a state, but it's most decidedly not a nation!  It was created by the Masters of War after their successful fraud of WWII being the Good War, and the second "war to end all wars."  Where did the name Iraq come from anyway?  There sure as hell is no such thing as the Iraqi people.

Iran is a different story entirely.  Persia has been in existence for thousands of years.  Ask an "Iranian-American" where they're from and most will say they're Persian.

Who are the Iraqi "people" anyway?  They have no national identity and so there can be no Iraqi nationalism.  Lacking any shred of national unity, you need an autocratic strongman to keep all the different factions in line, which is why Saddam Hussein was needed to keep order.  But deposing Saddam was surely a deliberate act of destabilization.  US/UK/NATO intervention was never about bringing "democracy" to Iraq.  None of the indigenous factions want anything to do with the corrupt "fantasy democracy" which many foolish young people have gone there (either in uniform and subject to UCMJ, grey-area special ops under Executive Action orders, or as CIA civilians or contractors with license to murder) sent there to kill and then maybe die themselves, for no purpose whatsoever except to serve the Masters of War in their perpetual search for more and more oil ... to kill and be killed as mere pawns in a game of checkers.  Chess would be overstating it. How can people be so stupid as to not see it?



TheReplacement's picture

You say a strongman is needed to keep the factions in line?  Why do the factions need to be kept in line?  I'm okay with them getting out of line.  I wouldn't mind if some do the robot while others square dance and the rest eat camels.  It's their land and their lives.  Why do we have to bring them order?

Notsobadwlad's picture

George ... so we should blame the Ashkenazi jews that are squatting in Israel? If what you say is true, then that seems to be the logical conclusion.

Oh, I don't believe for a second that the Ashkenazi jewish leadership in Israel represents the Israeli people any more than I believe the Ashkenazi jewish leadership in New York, Hollywood and Washington represent the American people. If I am an anti-semite, then I am a very selective anti-semite (are the Ashkenazi actually semites?) ... shitheads semites only.

To create order out of chaos, one must first have chaos, nes pa?

TradingTroll's picture

About a year ago, for fun, I went on that oh so unbiased Wikipedia, created an account, and looked at the Editors for the Ashkenazi Jews page. They were all Jews.


I then noticed the Ashkenzai Jew pages on Wikipedia discussed the genetic history of the Ashkenazi Jews but failed to list recent research.


There are many many DNA studies proving the Ashkenazi jews hail from the Caucasus, not from Israel.



So I edited Wikipedia to include this new research in the genetics section. Then the page was unedited, then I edited it back. Finally, I was treated to a hail of anti-semetic slurs (for reporting science) and finally I was banned from Wikipedia.


I think if everyone tried to do what I did, and went through the same experience, they would find how evil these Ashkenazi Jews are.



hootowl's picture

They are the Babylonian/Khazarians. The moneysucker currency counterfeiters. The bringers of nearly all of the evil and chaos that besets the entire world today.


TabakLover's picture

So, the British drew up a map of the ME back in 1914.  How'd that work out?  But we're Americans!  So the map we draw will be highly exceptional. 

falconflight's picture

I must discount much of what many of the posters ascribe, as well as the Author.  History isn't one thread in the life of any society or nation, and by definition world historical movements. 

An example, the popular cultural meme within the US is that our history consists of the one thread of race; whether that be slavery, discrimination (state sancationed or otherwise) and whether whites are by nature "bigoted," toward all those whom are not.  Our history consists of many threads (some major and many minor) to form the quilt of the American story.  

Our racial history viewed through the proper lense of context will find the importance of that history rather exaggerated, and rather stilted.

I think that a reasoned reading of American involvement in the ME is a quilt of good intentions (not a good motivation for involvement if you believe in our Constitution), narrow national self interest (each element of that self interest must be examined to decide its worth, morality, Constitutionality), personal hijacking of the state apparatus, and ineptitude. 

I think we all agree that the US Government, and its corporate partners have crafted an Empire, and empires always (is declaring an absolute fair?) corrupt themselves, and distort the interests of all whom must bend to the will of empire.

It is numbingly complicated.  I could write and believe I could reasonably support a paper assigning no small measure of culpibility for the Americans ME quandry to the environmentalist movement.  Just another thread...


eishund's picture

I think you might be a little confused, my friend. But you are a jolly good fella.

lakecity55's picture

Hell, the chaos on the Mexican Border is by design.

You have to congratulate Sparky: He has now destroyed the USA.

falconflight's picture

I' ve been perusing MEMRI's web site and considering the rabid bloodlust here regarding Israel specifically and the West in general, I will donate some small sum to MEMRI.  Anyone want to match my donation? 

sgt_doom's picture


Don't stop there, you'd also want to make a donation to Americans Elect, the phony hedge fund funded election group, peopled by the likes of fraudster, Lawrence Lessig, who also has founded a PAC to compete with all the PACs, to which you'd want to donate as well?

W.M. Worry's picture

"The co-founder and president of Memri, and the registered owner of its website, is an Israeli called Yigal Carmon.

Mr - or rather, Colonel - Carmon spent 22 years in Israeli military intelligence and later served as counter-terrorism adviser to two Israeli prime ministers, Yitzhak Shamir and Yitzhak Rabin.

Retrieving another now-deleted page from the archives of Memri's website also throws up a list of its staff. Of the six people named, three - including Col Carmon - are described as having worked for Israeli intelligence.

Among the other three, one served in the Israeli army's Northern Command Ordnance Corps, one has an academic background, and the sixth is a former stand-up comedian."


Which one are you falconflight? I'm guessing the stand up comedian.

falconflight's picture

And what is your point regarding the non profit's staff?

sgt_doom's picture

epic fail on falconflight's reading comprehension . . .

intric8's picture

Dont bother with him. FF could walk into MEMRI and get his bunghole gangbanged by a bunch of gay jews in that joint. They'll take his lunch money, kick his ass to the curb and promptly return to their propaganda writing and disparagement of arabs while FF walks home even more confused than he is right now

Monty Burns's picture

I imagine his point is that Israelis and dual-citizens define and run America's foreign policy for the benefit of Israel.

pashley1411's picture

Iraq was like Belgium, taking land and population out of the hands of local hegemonic powers; Iran, Turkey, Saudi Arabia.

The problem with this analysis is that this latest war puts Shia Iraq, 2/3rd's of the population, under Tehran's thumb.   Tehran is the winner, maybe the Riyahd as well, if you think the ISIS army is under their thumb (maybe, maybe not)).

I'm not saying that blowing up the Middle East is not in Israel's interest; maybe it is, maybe it isn't.    But I don't think blowing up Iraq, in particular, into its ethnic constituency's, was in Israel's (or Turkey's, or the US's) interest.



the grateful unemployed's picture

the broad US policy has been to moderate religious fundamentalism in the ME. that used to be the Shiites in Iran's theocracy. The Sunni's trump the Mullahs in Iran for religious extremism, which is embarrassing because we support them (or at least McCain and Graham do) in Syria's civil war and we want reconciliation between Sunnis and Shittes in Iraq. actually we want the Sunnis to behave like other religious moderates, Iran and Syria for instance. well we don't want theocracies, nations which print In God We Trust on their money and bankers who claim to be doing god's work. the Progressive movement in America begins before the New Deal, probably with the FF, though it has always been the practise in America to convert minorities (native american, or black slaves to christianity) we've always been a missionary nation in that regard, and Mormons were the first native church on American soil i believe, having a strong missionary zeal. Mormons as a group have the least interest in these foreign wars (Billy Graham blessed the first Iraq war for instance). the difficulty of American interests running counter to policy has always been there and leaders who don't respect that divide seem to make the biggest mistakes. 

falconflight's picture

The Arab/Muslim ME is simply undergoing a religious reformation.  The outcome is beyond prediction.  The US Gov't foreign policy apparatus is as confused and floundering like never before during the past generation or so.  The US has no credible foreign policy on any issue.  Hillary Clinton's biggest foreign policy initiative was to promote tolerance toward homosexuality.  It likely caused significant damage in the ablility to influence any nation outside the West about most any issue.

Monty Burns's picture

The US Gov't foreign policy apparatus is as confused and floundering...


Try looking at it from the perspective of 'how does this benefit Israel?'.  The policy then begins to make sense.  Seriously.  You'll see in due course that even the new 'opening' to Iran is predicated on this thesis.

q99x2's picture

The eastern front between the US and Russia/China grows.

US military be aware of what it is you are dying for: child molesting oligarchs in the City of London.