Sunday, March 15, 2009

The US Government is utterly corrupt to the core and beyond redemption

The US Government is utterly corrupt to the core and beyond redemption

In the first in a series to explain how events from the Siamese twins CIA2/MOSSAD/MI6/JSOC/OSP,

are shaped by the displacement of facts with beliefs through well-timed White House Murder INC, assassinations in the Levant and Pakistan etc., False Flag terror worldwide...and manufactured crises....

This issue focuses on unconventional warfare to show how staged crises pit two sides against the

middle while those in the middle profit off the misery of both. Thus the strategic goals presently

served by The Clash of Civilizations and the Global War on Terrorism.

A timeline of current events documents how the extremists that induced the U.S. to invade Iraq

are deploying the same modus operandi in an ongoing attempt to expand that war into Iran...

Unconventional Warfare – The People in Between

“Success will be less a matter of imposing one’s will and more a function of shaping

behavior of friends, adversaries, and most importantly, the people in between.”

-- Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates (October 10, 2007)

Success in warfare now depends on whether

the people in between can misdirect

attention and dissipate resources. In the

Information Age, entropy is the weapon of

choice as programmed disorder, instability

and a shared sense of insecurity disable the

national will and dissipate intent.

In an era of asymmetric warfare, entropy

enables those in between to wield disproportionate

influence through media, politics

and popular culture. Conventional wars are

fought only after the people in between

displace facts with what people can be

induced to believe is true.

For instance, the Vietnam War steadily

escalated after war powers were granted

President Lyndon Johnson in 1964 to assist

any Southeast Asian country facing

communist aggression. The Congressional

Gulf of Tonkin Resolution followed reports

of attacks on two U.S. naval vessels. We

now know the first incident was overstated

and the second did not occur.

The domain where beliefs reside is where

conflicts are created and unconventional

wars are staged. On that battlefield (the

shared field of consciousness), crises can be

deployed as weapons to diffuse focus, divert

resources and discredit decision-makers.

With entropy deployed for strategic

advantage, success flows to those best able

to create a consensus that would otherwise

be rejected as irrational or contrary to the

national interest. To displace rational

thought requires first that a critical mass of

minds has been prepared to ignore facts.

Only then are those minds prepared to act

based on what they believe to be in the

national interest. The realm where consensus


beliefs reside was prepared well before 9/11

to accept as plausible:

The Clash of Civilizations, a premise for

war published ten years before the

invasion of Iraq,1 and

War in Iraq, a premise for regime change

published five years before 9/11.

The Clash emerged as an article of faith as

national security shifted focus from a global

Cold War to a global War on Terrorism.

By consensus, belief in the danger of

global Communism was displaced by

belief in an Axis of Evil.

By consensus, the threat to national

security shifted from the Evil Empire to

the Evil of Islamo-fascism.

With the emotional catalyst of a mass

murder on American soil, the people in

between displaced rationality and facts with

beliefs and pre-staged impressions. Well

prior to the invasion of Iraq, the national

mindset was conditioned to believe that Iraq

had weapons of mass destruction. And that

secular Iraq had substantive ties with the

fundamentalists of Al Qaeda.

In the pre-staging of consensus belief is

found the strategic success of the war in Iraq

for the people in between. When waging war

in the field of shared consciousness, victory

belongs to the middleman who mediates

between the real facts and what the public is

prepared to embrace as consensus.

In unconventional warfare, well-placed

intermediaries prepare that field to accept

1 Samuel P. Huntington, “The Clash of

Civilizations?,” Foreign Affairs, Summer 1993,

chronicling what the author calls “the next pattern of


war as rational. The strategic task of

preparing-the-minds must be well advanced

before the catalyst emerges to provoke the

envisioned conflict. Consensus is the

precondition to nation-scale conflict. And

conflict is the goal of those who deploy

crises for long-term strategic advantage.

Treason in Unconventional Warfare

The rationale for war in the Middle East was

pre-staged well before the catalyst of 9/11

made it appear sensible that the U.S. would

respond by invading Iraq. That consensus

belief first appeared as the Greater Israel

policy published in 1996 as A Clean Break

under the guidance of Richard Perle.

A member of the Defense Policy Board

since 1987, Perle became its chairman in

2001. A long-time adviser to the Israeli

leadership, that key position helped Israeli

interests preempt U.S. interests as belief in

The Clash emerged, by consensus, as a clear

and present danger to national security.

A close look reveals the common source of

that belief. And identifies the ideology

shared by those who transformed that belief

into a strategy-shaping consensus. Absent

the global reach of modern media, the

people in between could not shape the

consensus mindset on such a global scale.

In an era of lopsided power to influence the

field of consciousness, the people in

between depend for success on the nontransparency

of their shared intent. With

transparency, an informed public could

identify the mindset common to those who

wield outsized influence on the consensus.

With transparency, the manipulation of

perceptions and opinions will loosen its

advantage as a weapon of war. With


analyses confirming the identity of a

common foe, the community of nations can

focus resources not on the next crisis but on

the common source of serial crises.

In the past, serial crises have routinely been

deployed to displace the capacity to reason.

In the future, Criminal State will provide the

analyses required to restore the authority of

facts and the rule of law.

Programmed Entropy

“Perfectly predictable”

– Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice describing the reaction to a

genocide resolution sponsored by Congressman Tom Lantos

On October 10, 2007 the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, chaired by Tom Lantos of

California, recommended a Congressional vote condemning as genocide the killing of

Armenians by Turks in the World War I era (1915-23). In response:

An outraged Turkish Parliament

approved a military operation against

Kurdish separatists in Iraq around the

northern oil city of Kirkuk. In response,

Kurdish guerillas stepped up their

attacks against oil pipelines.

The timing of the Lantos initiative

unleashed a salvo of systemic entropy

when this U.S. Congressman effectively:

Prompted Turkey to open a new

front in the war in northern Iraq.

Further destabilized the region.

Created a diplomatic crisis with the

potential to pit U.S. allies against one

another (Turkey and Iraq).

Endangered the 70 percent of U.S.

military cargo airlifted to Iraq

through a Turkish airbase.

Created conditions in the region that

could destabilize the U.S.-backed

government in Baghdad.

Consumed Congressional debate.

Diverted attention from Tel Aviv’s

resistance to final status negotiations

with the Palestinians.

Created sympathy for Israelis as

genocide and the WWII Holocaust

worked their way into the field of


As presidential attention was diverted to

this crisis, Secretary Rice:

Urged that Turkey show restraint.

Noted that reaction to the Lantos

measure “was perfectly predictable” –

six weeks before Israel’s reluctant

participation in a peace conference.

Ten days after Lantos led a U.S. effort to

address matters that occurred 90 years ago:

Twelve Turkish soldiers were killed in

an ambush by Kurdish separatists 25

miles inside Turkey.

In a veiled reference to U.S. concerns

about a Turkish incursion into Iraq,

Prime Minister Erdogan announced:

“We do not have any thoughts as to what

one side or another would have to say

about this.”

The next day (Oct. 21st), Israeli Prime

Minister Ehud Olmert announced that

the U.S.-sponsored conference on

Palestinian statehood “is not meant to


propose or produce solutions, but rather

to bolster a negotiations process.”

The examples above and the timeline below

suggest that the people in between use:

Lawmaking to catalyze crises

Crises to shape U.S. foreign policy.

Perceptions to displace facts.

Beliefs to create consensus.

U.S. policy to advance Israeli policy.

The Palestinian conflict to catalyze serial

crises in the region.

Adversity to portray Israel as a regional

ally needed by the U.S.

Conflicts to portray Israel as a victim

deserving U.S. assistance.

The consistency of this conduct over

multiple decades (see below) suggests that

the same unconventional warfare has also

shaped the foreign policy of other nations.

The long-term strategic effect: the informed

consent of democracy is displaced by well-timed

crises with an agenda advanced by the

people in between who wield from the

shadows disproportionate influence on the

field of consciousness.

Means of Engagement

The timeline at pages 7-12 provides a snapshot of the people in between as their field-based

influence is deployed to: (1) expand into Iran the war in Iraq, and (2) avoid final status

negotiations meant to bring an end to the six-decade Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

To grasp the consistency of this field-based approach to unconventional warfare requires a

description of recurring behavior patterns. Once these repetitive patterns can be seen, the conduct

of the people in between becomes “perfectly predictable.” These behavioral templates offer a

way to recognize and describe behavior chronicled in the timeline that follows.

Preparing the Minds. The use of incidents,

media reports, policies and popular culture

to lend plausibility to beliefs that are

deployed to displace facts.

Out-of-Theatre Repositioning. When a

staged crisis gains too much (or too little)

traction in the field of consciousness, the

people in between catalyze a crisis in

another venue. Thus the belief-shaping role

of serial crises and cumulative crises when

wielding asymmetric influence in that field.

Time, Place & Circumstance (TPC). When

waging a war of impressions, perceptions

and manipulated opinions, the power of

association serves as a powerful weapon.

For example:

In December 2006, Germany announced

a new initiative to press for settlement of

the Arab-Israeli conflict. In response,

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert

called for Germany to cut its economic

ties with Iran, suggesting that Berlin’s

obligations toward Israel were greater

because of its Nazi past, associating

Germany with the Holocaust just as its

leadership sought to settle the conflict.

On the same December 2006 day that

British Prime Minister Tony Blair met

with Palestinian Authority President

Mahmoud Abbas, the chief of Israel’s

Mossad intelligence agency announced

that Iran would likely acquire nuclear

weapons by 2009 or 2010.


TPC also plays a tactical role when evoking

a shared sense of uncertainty or insecurity,

whether national, personal or financial.

When shaping shared beliefs (a consensus),

cascading crises have more impact than an

isolated incident.

State of Mind. Unconventional wars rely on

agents, assets and sayanim (volunteers).

Agents possess the intent that culpably

connects their mind to the crime. Thus,

when detected, they are readily

prosecuted, as with Israeli spy Jonathan

Pollard who is serving a life sentence.

Assets are people profiled such that,

within a range of probabilities, they can

be expected to behave consistent with

their profile in staged circumstances.

Assets don’t pursue a crime but rather

their personal needs for recognition,

influence, money, sex or drugs.

Sayanim play an essential support role.

Though often unaware of the end result

of the crime, sayanim agree to assist,

whenever asked, with operations they’re

assured are in Israel’s best interest.

In combination, agents, assets and sayanim

provide a powerful force multiplier for

operations that proceed in plain view yet out

of sight. When the impact of these “people

in between” enhances the influence wielded

by those in media, politics and pop culture,

unconventional warfare can be waged

undetected and with legal impunity.

When fully deployed, these components can

have a powerful effect on decision-making.

Thus one must question the coincidental

timing of incidents in the lead-up to a U.S.

Senate resolution in support of America’s

invasion of Iraq:

October 2, 2001 – random sniper attacks

began around the Washington, D.C.

area, killing ten people and wounding

three over a three-week period.2

October 3, 2001 – Israeli Prime Minister

Ariel Sharon announced: "I want to tell

you something very clear, don't worry

about American pressure on Israel, we,

the Jewish people control America, and

the Americans know it."3

October 3, 2001 – Debate began on

Senate Joint Resolution 46 authorizing

President Bush to use whatever force is

deemed necessary in Iraq or elsewhere.

October 4, 2001 – a White House leak,

traced to Deputy Defense Secretary Paul

Wolfowitz, confirmed that the U.S.

would invade Iraq.

October 5, 2001 – weapons-grade

anthrax (its origins remain a mystery)

killed its first victim in Florida where

cells of 9-11 terrorists had trained.4

October 5, 2001 – Israeli Prime Minister

Ariel Sharon warned the U.S.: “Do not

try to appease the Arabs at our expense.

This is unacceptable to us. Israel will not

be Czechoslovakia. Israel will fight


October 6-8, 2001 – in response to leaks,

President Bush restricted intelligencesharing

to the eight senior leaders of

Congress. Congressman Tom Lantos

2 Criminal State chronicles dozens of instances in

which dysfunctional personalities act out their needs

(as assets) in ways that prove strategically

advantageous based on the time, place and

circumstance of their behavior.

3 Announced in an Israeli Cabinet session, reported

on Kol Yisrael radio.

4 Investigations following 9-11 uncovered an Israelidirected

operation that sent “art students” to the U.S.,

including many who had served in military

intelligence and electronic signal intercept units.

According to FBI investigations, these cells of four to

six Israelis each rented apartments in close proximity

to Islamic terrorist cells in Phoenix, Arizona, and in

Miami and Hollywood, Florida. Two other Israelis in

the “art ring” settled in Fort Lauderdale, Florida

where eight hijackers lived just north of town.

5 Sharon’s comparison of the 9-11 terrorists to Hitler

and President Bush to British Foreign Secretary

Neville Chamberlain elicited a terse response from

Secretary of State Colin Powell.


rushed to the White House to protest.

The White House relented and the

information flow re-commenced. When

asked on Meet the Press in September

2002 about the prospects for war in Iraq,

Lantos responded, “The train has already

left the station.”6

Befriend/Deceive/Betray. Influence is

magnified when the “mark” is befriended

over a long period of time. And when

positions of trust and influence become a

means to deceive and betray the mark.

Thus the strategic implications when

positions of influence are assumed at the

optimal TPC (time, place and circumstance)

by people in between such as Richard Perle.

As power becomes systemic, influence

becomes non-transparent and more readily

exerted from the shadows – and from afar.

As an entangling alliance with Israel

becomes a means of virtual control by

pro-Israelis, U.S. policy-making shifts

into the hands of foreign interests.

As control over U.S. foreign policy

shifts from Washington to Tel Aviv,

U.S. lawmakers lose control over U.S.

foreign policy and U.S. national security.

Game Theory & Agent Provocateur.

Throughout the timeline below, note the

recurring role of the agent provocateur at

the core of this unconventional warfare.

The refined mathematical modeling of game

theory strategists, an area where Israelis

excel, means that the reactions to staged

provocations become “perfectly predictable”

– i.e., within a range of probabilities such

6 Speaking to the Israeli Knesset in September 2002,

Lantos boasted: “You won’t have any problem with

Saddam. We’ll be rid of the bastard soon enough.

And in his place we’ll install a pro-Western dictator,

who will be good for us and for you.” The

circumstances suggest he was referring to Ahmed


that the anticipated behavior of the “mark”

can be modeled.7 Thus:

The mark can be a person, a policy, a

nation or an entire culture (e.g., Islam).

The anticipated response of the mark

becomes a weapon in the strategic

arsenal of the agent provocateur.

The agent provocateur can wage war

with minimal resources by provoking the

mark to deploy its forces.

The mark can be discredited by the

reaction to a pre-staged provocation.

As the mark, the U.S. was portrayed as

irrational when its predictable response

to the provocation of 9/11 triggered a

“perfectly predictable” insurgency -- in

response to its invasion of Iraq.

As the mark emerges in the foreground, the

agent provocateur fades into the background

while media, politics and pop culture create

a consensus deployed to discredit the mark.

The effect enables the agent provocateur to

wage war on multiple fronts with minimal

military resources while posing as an ally.

Note throughout the strategic use of a fastglobalizing

media, politics and pop culture:

To deploy assets, such as policy-makers,

to lend plausibility to proposals to bomb

Iran -- by presidential candidates

Clinton, Giuliani, McCain and Romney.

To gain traction in the field of

consciousness for incidents that rely on

the power of association to shape

consensus beliefs – such as belief in The

Clash catalyzed by 9/11 with the aid of

rhetorical framing (“Islamo-fascism”).

To “wage war by way of deception”

remains the operative motto of the

7 In October 2005, Israeli mathematician and

economist Robert J. Aumann received the Nobel

prize in economic science. Co-founder of the Center

for Rationality at Hebrew University, this Jerusalem

resident conceded that “the entire school of thought

that we have developed here in Israel” has turned

“Israel into the leading authority in this field.”


Israeli Mossad, worldwide specialists in

intelligence, psy-ops, assassinations and

undercover operations.

Timeline of Nonlinear Warfare

This timeline demonstrates how influences contrary to America’s best interests can operate in

plain view yet non-transparently and, to date, with impunity.

August 8 – As international pressure builds

for final status negotiations in the fall, Israeli

Defense Minister Ehud Barak announced

that Israel must first develop an effective

missile defense system, a process expected

to take three to five years.

August 11 – Israel sought to cancel a UN

seminar in Brussels as “anti-Israel.”

August 12 – Tom Lantos, as chairman of the

House Foreign Relations Committee,

announced from Washington that “there will

be no progress in Israel-Palestine relations

before the 2008 presidential elections.”

Five weeks earlier, Tony Blair resigned

as British Prime Minister and announced

his appointment as Middle East Envoy to

the Quartet, bringing new focus to a twostate

solution “as the only way to bring

stability and peace to the Middle East.”

Five weeks later, Israeli Defense

Minister Ehud Barak announced that Tel

Aviv should not “appease” a U.S.

president with one year left.

August 12 – Tom Lantos cautioned that

Israel’s premature removal of Palestinian

roadblocks “is a guarantee of violence and

terrorism erupting.”8

8 As a supporter of the 1991 Persian Gulf War that

pre-staged the current war, Lantos used his position

as co-chair of the House Human Rights Caucus to

create media coverage for “Nurse Nayirah” who

described the killing of Kuwaiti babies by Iraqi

soldiers. That portrayal helped build support for that

war in hearings convened just prior to the vote

authorizing the war. The story was a fabrication

created by public relations firm Hill & Knowlton that

was paid $14 million by the U.S. government. “Nurse

Nine weeks later, UN envoy John

Dugard, urged the UN to pull out of the

Quartet unless Palestinian human rights

were taken seriously.

A South African and special envoy for

the Palestinian territories, Dugard

charged that Israel Defense Forces

checkpoints in the occupied West Bank

are meant to “make the life of

Palestinians as miserable as possible”

August 15 – Presidential candidate Rudy

Giuliani declared his opposition to the

creation of a Palestinian state at present

because it would “support terrorism” and

endanger U.S. security.

August 16 – A U.S. State Department

spokesman announced that Iran’s Islamic

Revolutionary Guard Corps may be

designated a terrorist organization as the

U.S. confronts “Iranian behavior across a

variety of different fronts, on a number of

different, quote unquote, battlefields.”

August 16 – In a New Yorker article

dedicated to Giuliani’s political ambitions,

pro-Israeli adviser Norman Podhoretz

reported that, if elected president, the former

Mayor of New York would bomb Iran.

Nayirah,” the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador,

was coached to play the role for political effect. In

the run-up to the current war, Lantos called it “a kind

of racism” to suggest that Iraqis would not welcome

the U.S. invasion. While in Tel Aviv in August 2006,

Lantos announced after a meeting with Israeli Prime

Minister Ehud Olmert that he would block U.S. aid

promised to Lebanon by President Bush.


August 16 – The New York Times reported

that on the same day scheduled for release of

The Israel Lobby, Anti-Defamation League

Executive Director Abe Foxman would

release The Deadliest Lies: The Israel Lobby

and the Myth of Jewish Control.

Foxman’s book was endorsed by

Reagan-era Secretary of State George

Schultz who dismissed The Israel

Lobby: “This is a conspiracy theory

pure and simple, and scholars at great

universities should be ashamed to

promulgate it.”9

The Israel Lobby by scholars John

Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt

claimed: “Israel has become a strategic

liability for the United States. Yet no

aspiring politician is going to say so in

public or even raise the possibility.”

August 17 – The U.S. State Department

announced a $30 billion defense package for

Israel citing the need to counter a “growing

threat” from Iran and “an axis of

cooperation between Iran, Syria, Hezbollah,

Islamic Jihad and Hamas that is responsible

for violence in the region.”

No conditions were attached to U.S. aid

and Tel Aviv could convert into shekels

26.3 percent of U.S. funds to buy arms

and equipment from Israeli firms.

August 18 – A senior Palestinian aide

reported that Israel would not discuss the

core issues preventing a Palestinian state.

At the opening of “Israel Week” in

Berlin, several protestors opposed the

sale of Israeli food products originating

in the occupied territories.

Berlin journalist Ruth Fructman told

how difficult it was for Germans to

9 Mr. Schultz is co-chairman of the pro-Israeli

Committee on the Present Danger, along with former

CIA Director James Woolsey.

protest Israeli policies “because every

time they criticize Israel, they’re

accused of anti-Semitism.”

August 20 – Mike Shuster reported on

National Public Radio that Iran was creating

tensions in the Muslim world.

In a commentary titled, “Iran’s

Ambitions Spark Fears in the Muslim

World,” Shuster echoed themes

broadcast in the lead-up to the U.S.

invasion of Iraq when Saddam Hussein

was portrayed as a regional threat.

August 30 – A former chief of staff to

Secretary of State Colin Powell reported that

Israel had advised the U.S. in 2002: “Iraq is

not the enemy. Iran is the enemy. If you are

going to destabilize the balance of power, do

it against the main enemy.”

September 6 – The Israeli Air Force

reportedly struck a Syrian installation near

the Turkish border based on Israeli-sourced

intelligence claiming the recent arrival of

nuclear equipment from North Korea.

The time, place and circumstance of the

Israeli strike complicated U.S diplomacy:

The U.S. was in the midst of multiparty

nuclear arms negotiations with

North Korea.

The U.S. was working toward a

comprehensive peace accord between

Arabs and Israelis.

As debate swirled around the reliability

(and motive) of Israeli intelligence,

President Bush declined all comment.

Media reports suggested that Vice

President Cheney approved the attack

while Secretary of State Rice opposed


September 10 – As Tel Aviv was being

urged to embrace a final status settlement

that would include sharing Jerusalem,


Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton

committed her campaign to a secure Israel

with “an undivided Jerusalem as its capital.”

September 17 – French Foreign Minister

Bernard Kouchner (Jewish) announced that

the world should prepare for war over Iran’s

nuclear program.

September 19 – Israel declared Gaza a

“hostile entity,” increasing the economic

distress of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak

announced that security comes before

diplomacy and insisted the Palestinians

“show results” before progress toward

final status could be made.

A week later, Israel’s largest

commercial bank terminated all

banking activity in Gaza. By the second

week of October, banks in Gaza were

running short of cash.

September 20 – In London, Giuliani

announced that, if elected, he would: (1)

seek NATO membership for Israel, and (2)

deploy the U.S. military to prevent Iran from

acquiring a nuclear weapon. He conceded

that he had spoken the night before with

Israeli Prime Minister Olmert.10

10 In August 2007, Daniel Pipes joined the Giuliani

campaign as a foreign policy adviser. His

organization, Campus Watch, monitors speakers for

“anti-Semitism” on campuses nationwide. Prior to

Gerald Ford’s electoral loss to Jimmy Carter, the

former Michigan Congressman ordered the creation

of “Team B” as an alternative threat assessment to

the National Intelligence Estimate provided by the

CIA (“Team A”). At the recommendation of Richard

Perle, Paul Wolfowitz became a member of Team B,

giving the future Deputy Secretary of Defense and

Iraq war-planner an entry point into shaping U.S.

defense policy. Richard Pipes, father of Daniel,

emerged as the primary intellectual force in

compiling Team B assessments that we now know

overstated the threat to the U.S. of Soviet military

and economic strength. With the 2000 election of

G.W. Bush, Team B and the Committee on the

Present Danger (CPD) moved inside the Pentagon

In Beirut, a bombing killed a Christian

lawmaker and six others, the eighth

Lebanese leader assassinated since

Prime Minister Rafik Hariri in 2005 set

off a cycle of regional political crises.

That assassination narrowed the

moderate government’s majority in

Parliament to 67 of 128 seats.

September 22 – Due to the closing of border

crossings, several thousand Palestinians

were turned away from Friday Prayer at Al

Aksa Mosque during Ramadan.

Defense Minister Barak assured

Secretary Rice that 24 of the 572

checkpoints would be dismantled.

That followed an increase of 40 barriers

and checkpoints in the prior two

months, up from 376 in August 2005.

September 24 – Former national security

adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski cautioned that

Vice President Cheney was hyping the

atmosphere and the U.S. was in danger of

“stampeding” to war with Iran similar to

what occurred prior to the war in Iraq.

September 24 – Israel announced that Prime

Minister Olmert would face a criminal

investigation for his purchase of a Jerusalem

property for $325,000 under market value.

Olmert’s home in Jerusalem became the

site for official government meetings.

That venue enabled Israel to portray its

government as based not in the capital,

Tel Aviv, but in Jerusalem, a key issue

in final status negotiations.

where their intelligence operation emerged as the

Office of Special Plans (OSP) headed by Douglas

Feith, overseen by Paul Wolfowitz and with direct

access to the Oval Office through Lewis Libby, Vice

President Cheney’s chief of staff. The CPD was

founded in 1950 to warn Americans of the perils of



September 27 – The U.S. Senate approved a

resolution that the Bush Administration

label Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard

Corps as a foreign terrorist organization, a

proposal tantamount to pre-staging a

declaration of war against Iran.

The sponsors: Arizona Senator Jon Kyl,

a Christian Zionist, and Joe Lieberman

from Connecticut, a Jewish Zionist.

Lieberman and Kyl serve as honorary

co-chairs of the pro-Israeli Committee

on the Present Danger that branded The

Clash of Civilizations as the work of


October 15-16 – New York Senator

Hillary Clinton, a Democrat, and Rudy

Giuliani, a Republican, announced that,

if elected president, U.S. military force

would be used to compel Iran to

abandon its nuclear program.

Arizona Republican John McCain made

the same commitment.

Giuliani and McCain were speaking at

the Republican Jewish Coalition.

Evidencing Israeli influence over the

presidential field, Illinois Senator Barack

Obama sponsored a Tom Lantos House

bill urging disinvestment in companies

doing business with Iran.

September 28 – Israeli Defense Forces

withdrew from Gaza after killing 12

Palestinians in 24 hours in response to firing

20 rockets and 11 mortar shells into Israel,

causing minor damage and no injuries.

October 4 – Newly released intelligence

confirmed that Tel Aviv knew on June 8,

1967, at the height of the Six-Day War, that

a naval vessel attacked by Israeli Air Force

warplanes and warships was the USS

Liberty on which 34 Americans were killed.

That incident was covered up by President

Lyndon Johnson with the aid of Admiral

John McCain, commander of the Pacific

fleet and father of the Arizona Senator.

On the night that the Six-Day war broke

out, former Irgun terrorist Mathilde

Krim was servicing Lyndon Johnson’s

needs in the White House where she

spent the night.

Husband Arthur Krim, a New York

lawyer and president of United Artists,

was then finance chairman for the

Democratic National Committee and

chairman of the President’s Club of New

York, an organization of pro-Israeli

business leaders active in politics.

The Six-Day War pre-staged land

disputes that remain a key source of

instability and conflict in the region.

Prior to this brief conflict, the victorious

Israelis portrayed their nation as victim

of an “Arab Ring of Steel” (an earlier

version of “Islamo-fascism”).

October 5 – Israel denied entry to

Palestinians injured in Hamas-Fatah fighting

except those with life-threatening injuries.

The result provoked an outcry when, due to

the delay, a wheelchair-bound Gaza resident

had both legs amputated.

October 7 – Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipe

Livni expressed concern at the rapid pace of

negotiations with Palestinians. Prime

Minister Olmert announced that no

agreements had been reached. Comparing

Iran’s President to Adolph Hitler, President

Shimon Peres portrayed Iran’s nuclear

ambitions as an impending Holocaust.

October 9 – Israeli Defense Forces

appropriated land from four Arab villages,

undermining prospects for a contiguous

Palestinian state as the West Bank’s

northern and southern halves were separated

prior to the Annapolis conference where the

disposition of West Bank land is a key issue.

Israeli police questioned Prime Minister

Olmert for five hours regarding the sale

of a bank to a friend while he served as

Finance Minister.


Emerging Olmert-related scandals

served notice that the government may

fall prior to (or during) the Annapolis

peace conference.

October 10 – Ron Lauder, president of the

World Jewish Congress, met with Pope

Benedict XVI at the Vatican to voice

concern about Iran and the rise in anti-

Semitic sentiments.

October 11 – Israeli Military Intelligence

predicted failure for the peace conference.

October 14 – In Tel Aviv, Secretary Rice

said that only by focusing on core issues can

the peace process advance.

As a gesture of Israeli goodwill, Barak

agreed to dismantle one roadblock.

Barak departed for the U.S. to promote

missile defense as a prerequisite for

ceding West Bank land to Palestinians.

October 15 – While in Israel, Secretary Rice

was assured that the Olmert government

would fall if there were any mention of a

timetable or the three key issues in dispute –

Jerusalem, borders and refugees.

The prospect of no Israeli government

to negotiate (i.e., entropy), shifted to

Tel Aviv control over the prospect for a

productive peace conference.

By convening the conference at the

U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis,

Israeli leaders knew that the power of

association could convey how Israel’s

murder in 1967 of 34 U.S. servicemen

aboard the USS Liberty helped prestage

serial crises in the region.

October 17 – In response to a reporter’s

question about nuclear weapons, President

Bush spoke of Iran’s leader wanting to

destroy Israel and that, unless nuclear

weapons were dealt with in the region, the

world could face World War III.

Next-day media reports claimed that he

warned a nuclear Iran (vs. a nuclear

Israel) could start World War III.

As media accounts fixated on the

comment, the White House said he was

making “a rhetorical point.”

October 20 – In a Financial Times

interview, former UN Ambassador John

Bolton predicted that President Bush would

launch a military strike on Iran’s nuclear

facilities before leaving office.

Bolton was one of 25 signers of a

January 1998 letter to Clinton urging

regime change in Iraq as proposed by the

Project for a New American Century.

After the 2000 election, many of the

PNAC signers crafted the policies that

took the nation to war in Iraq.

Of the 50 most senior neoconservative

advocates for war in Iraq, 26 were

Jewish (52 percent vs. 2 percent for the

U.S. population overall).

October 20 – In an Israeli TV interview,

Strategic Affairs Minister Avigdor

Lieberman confirmed the “government will

not be able to continue” if core issues are

discussed at the Annapolis peace conference

(Jerusalem, borders, refugees).

October 20 – Shas, the Sephardic ultra-

Orthodox party in Israel’s coalition

government, confirmed it would leave the

Olmert government if any mention were

made of Jerusalem as a negotiable issue.

October 18-21 – The Pentagon announced a

strategic partnership to strengthen

Lebanon’s army so that Hezbollah would

have no excuse to bear arms.

Israel then named Druze MK Majalli

Mhbee as deputy foreign minister.

Lebanese Druze leader Walid Jumblatt

sought Israeli Defense Minister Barak’s

help in toppling the Syrian government.


Barak and Jumblatt held talks in the U.S.

with the aid of Vice President Dick

Cheney and an unnamed American of

Lebanese origin.11

Barak met with President Bush for an

hour in the office of National Security

Adviser Stephen Hadley.

Media reports made no mention of the

regime change implications for Syria.

Nor did media reports mention how war

in Iraq was pre-staged in similar fashion.

October 21 – Without naming Israel, Vice

President Cheney cautioned in a speech at

the Washington Institute for Near East

Policy (a pro-Israeli advocacy center):

“The international community is

prepared to impose serious consequences”

if Iran fails to abandon its

nuclear program.

“We will not allow Iran to have a

nuclear weapon.”

Syria may also face consequences.

October 22 – After meeting with French

President Sarkozy on the Iranian issue,

Olmert said, “I could not have heard

anything that better met my expectations.”

Sarkozy called Israel’s establishment in

1948 “the miracle of the 20th century.”

Israeli Finance Minister Bar-On asked

the World Bank to end economic aid to

Gaza, arguing that more Palestinian

hardship would aid the peace process.

Bin Laden released a new tape calling on

Al Qaeda in Iraq to unify their forces.

President Bush asked that Congress

approve $46 billion over the $150 billion

11 This scenario resembled the deployment of Iraqi

Ahmed Chalabi, a graduate of M.I.T., in the run-up to

war in Iraq. Post-invasion, Chalabi boasted of placing

108 articles in major U.S. media outlets featuring his

fixed intelligence. After the invasion of Iraq, he said:

“we are heroes in error.” Chalabi’s intelligence

informed the Pentagon’s Office of Special Plans that

bypassed traditional intelligence agencies.

requested for fiscal year 2008 to pay for

wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Turkey increased its shelling of Kurdish

insurgents in northern Iraq.

October 23 – Palestinian prisoners rebelled

in response to a 2 a.m. search for contraband

in an Israeli tent prison holding 2,500. One

inmate was killed by “nonlethal weapons.”

Tel Aviv continued to defer its promised

prisoner release prior to the peace talks.

Three Palestinians were killed in Gaza.

October 24 – Ehud Barak approved the

disruption of electricity to Gaza and limited

deliveries of fuel, services and merchandise.

Appearing before the Lantos-chaired House

Committee on Foreign Relations, Secretary

Rice cautioned that the window of

opportunity is closing for a two-state

solution, citing a need “to deal a blow to the

forces of extremism.” She testified against

the Lantos genocide resolution.

Middleman Math

Israeli influence over U.S. foreign policy is apparent in the emerging dynamics of the Annapolis

peace conference. By maintaining its ‘special friendship’ with a Zionist state in the Middle East,

the U.S., in effect, granted virtual veto power over its foreign policy to a single ultra-Orthodox

chairman of an extremist minority party in a coalition government of a foreign nation.

As pointed out by Shas chairman Eli Yishai,

Israel’s Minister of Industry and Trade, if

his party leaves Olmert’s governing

coalition: “This may result in the breakup of

the government, and it will depend on

whether Lieberman also decides to quit.”

In practical effect, this entangling alliance

means that the most extreme of Israel’s

Zionist extremists exert virtual control over

America’s ability to craft a foreign policy

that protects U.S. national interests.

Add to that influence the force-multiplier

effect of agents, assets and a global cadre of

volunteers (sayanim) and this extremist state

can wield power over U.S. policy that is

wildly disproportionate to its population.

With virtual command and control exercised

through: (1) a dispersed nationalism (the

Diaspora), and (2) an ethos of shared

insecurity and victimhood (the Holocaust),

Israel can draw on the worldwide services of

an informal, non-uniformed Israel Defense

Forces whose allegiance transcends time,

space and national boundaries.

Disproportionately populate the in between

of the Information Age with people allied

with Zionist ideology (in media, politics and

pop culture) and control of foreign policy

steadily accrues to those few regardless of

the nation in which they reside.

For instance, the Roadmap for Peace

(developed by the US, in cooperation with

Russia, the European Union and the UN)

was presented to Israel and the Palestinian

Authority on April 30, 2003.

Yet the contents of the proposal were

criticized in detail in U.S. media outlets

months beforehand as pro-Israeli

commentators dismissed the roadmap as “a

map without a destination,” a “map to

nowhere” and “road kill.”

Media reports accurately described Tom

Lantos’ push for a Congressional vote

designating as genocide the deaths of 1.5

million Armenians. However, no U.S. media

outlet reported the game theory mathematics

that made “perfectly predictable” the

geopolitical response catalyzed by the

Lantos initiative

Nor did any media outlet report that, when

the U.S. invaded Iraq in March 2003, Israel

had 100 Mossad agents working for a

decade in traditionally Kurdish Mosul, a

major Iraqi city included in the U.S.-

imposed no-fly zone from 1991-2003.

Media reports also failed to mention that:

Saddam Hussein’s alleged connections

to Al Qaeda were in Mosul, media

reports that turned out to be false.

Mosul emerged in November 2004 as a

center of the “perfectly predictable”

insurgency that destabilized Iraq.

With mathematical predictability, an

October 21st raid by Kurdish guerillas deep

into Turkey pressured the coalition

government in Ankara to respond with a

military strike in northern Iraq. Absent a

show of force, the government would

endanger its credibility – ensuring a

“perfectly predictable” response to the

Lantos provocation.


With similar statistical precision, Israel’s

coalition government can control geopolitics

in the region by ensuring that the opinions of

a few ultra-nationalist Zionists determine

whether or not a government remains in

place to negotiate with the Palestinians. By

deploying an entropy strategy, Tel Aviv

controls the game board – from the shadows.

A Future Foreseen

In an attempt to forestall a nuclear arms race in the region, President Kennedy cautioned Israeli

Prime Minister Ben-Gurion in May 1963: “the disturbing effects on world stability which would

accompany the development of a nuclear weapons capability by Israel.”

To preclude the Zionist state (then 15 years old) from developing nuclear weapons, Kennedy

wrote to Ben-Gurion again on June 15, 1963. Repeating earlier concerns, JFK insisted on

regularly scheduled inspections of Israel’s nuclear reactor facility at Dimona in the Negev

Desert. After confirming that Ben-Gurion and other senior Israeli officials lied to him, Kennedy

included language adopted from the legal standard for criminal culpability:

“If Israel’s purposes are to be clear to the world beyond reasonable doubt, I believe that

the schedule which would best serve our common purposes would be a visit by early this

summer, another visit in June 1964, and thereafter at intervals of six months.…Knowing

that you fully appreciate the truly vital significance of this matter to the future well-being

of Israel, to the United States, and internationally, I am sure our carefully considered

request will again have your most sympathetic attention.” (emphasis added)

By linking Israel’s nuclear weapons capability to the future well-being of the fledgling Zionist

state, the U.S. Commander-in-Chief threw down a diplomatic gauntlet with a “carefully

considered request” from the nation most critical to Israel’s founding.

Lessons in Duplicity for the Annapolis Peace Conference

In October 1963, Kennedy repeated a commitment given to Israeli Foreign Minister Golda Meir

in a December 1962 meeting in Palm Beach where he promised that the U.S. military would

come to Israel’s aid if it were attacked. As explained by acting Secretary of State George Ball:

“Kennedy hoped that, freed from

fear of an Arab attack, Israel would

drop its plans for a nuclear arsenal.

As we now know, that was a vain

hope. Israel had no intention of

giving up its nuclear ambitions.” 12

Ball described the subsequent arms race that

engulfed the Middle East:

12 George W. Ball and Douglas B. Ball, The

Passionate Attachment (New York: W.W. Norton,

1992), p. 51.

“If the Israelis saw themselves as

behind in the arms race, they would

refuse to negotiate from ‘weakness’; if

they were sure they were ahead, they

would see no need to grant the Arabs

even the most trifling concessions.”

Kennedy was assassinated in November. Tel

Aviv correctly concluded that a new U.S.

president would be more obliging. Lyndon

Johnson not only provided more funds and

more weapons, he also offered Israel a

sophisticated arsenal of offensive weaponry,

enhancing both their capacity and their


confidence to pursue a more ambitious

strategy in the region – and within the U.S.

Johnson’s support also strengthened the

political hand of Israeli hawks, including

generals such as Moshe Dayan who led the

1967 War and ordered the attack on the USS

Liberty, and Shimon Peres who oversaw

Israeli arms purchases in 1948.

Peres then marketed Tel Aviv’s duplicitous

stance on nuclear weapons: “we will not be

the first country that introduces nuclear

weapons to the Middle East.” This “strategic

ambiguity” remains intact as this nucleararmed

U.S. ally remained a non-member of

the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty since it

came into force in 1970.

By the power of association, the world’s

largest democracy became identified with

Israeli behavior – particularly in the UN

where the U.S. routinely vetoed criticism of

Israel even when its conduct was well

outside international norms of acceptable

nation-state behavior.

By marketing this perceived correspondence

of interests (widely touted by Tel Aviv), the

U.S.-Israeli alliance discredited the U.S.

worldwide. Meanwhile this strategic

entanglement fueled the increasing ire of

outraged Arabs as U.S. democracy became

identified with Zionist extremism.

In 1956, President Dwight Eisenhower

appeared on nationwide television during

the Suez Crisis in which Israel sought to

expand its territory in the region.13 When the

13 Like Kennedy, Eisenhower was disgusted by

Israeli duplicity. Eight years after the U.S. aided

Zionism’s recognition as a legitimate nation, Tel

Aviv failed to inform U.S. leaders of their intentions

even while triggering the Suez crisis with the French

and the British, key U.S. allies in WWII. The Israelis

also ignored American appeals not to go to war in the

Sinai, ignoring U.S. strategic concerns about driving

Egypt and other nations into the Soviet sphere and

aggravating Cold War tensions.

Israeli leadership saw the former general’s

ability to counter the Israel lobby’s influence

in the Congress, Tel Aviv also realized the

power of principled opposition.

Had the telegenic Kennedy engaged that

warm medium to oppose the Zionist state’s

cold ambitions, his articulate opposition may

well have ended the war on terrorism in the

fall of 1963 with the commencement of

international inspections of the nuclear

facilities at Dimona.

On June 15, 1963, two days after Israeli

Foreign Minister Golda Meir convened

senior staff to discuss U.S. pressure on

Israel’s nuclear arms program, Kennedy sent

Prime Minister Ben-Gurion his strongly

worded letter that suggested criminality

within the Zionist leadership.

Ben-Gurion resigned on June 16th after

Kennedy insisted on nuclear inspections

consistent with international standards:

regularly scheduled, full access, ample

inspection time and the use of both U.S. and

neutral parties, “thereby resolving all doubts

as to the peaceful intent of the Dimona


Entropy as Strategy

Well-timed changeovers in leadership are a

well-known tactic in the entropy arsenal of

sophisticated game theorists. When Levi

Eshkol replaced David Ben-Gurion in June

1963, that change provided Tel Aviv a

plausible excuse to delay for two months a

reply to Kennedy’s urgent concerns about its

nuclear weapons program.

Rather than the commitment to inspections

that Kennedy sought from Ben-Gurion, the

State Department advised that JFK instead

give Eshkol “the benefit of the doubt” and

rely on “an accommodation in practice”

rather than seek assurances and a firm

timetable in the midst of a changeover.


Thus the strategic precedent for pre-staging

the entropy-inducing “failure” of the Olmert

government. If the Annapolis conference

shows any sign of progress toward final

status negotiations, the governing coalition

can split. Or Olmert can be indicted on any

of several pending charges.

Even the threat of an entropy strategy wields

political power. For example, when Ariel

Sharon drew a barrage of criticism in

October 2001 by telling a U.S. president not

to “appease the Arabs at Israel’s expense,”

six days later a series of scandals threatened

to collapse his coalition government.

The prospect of instability in the Middle

East so soon after 9/11 provided a plausible

reason for the Israel lobby to urge a toning

down in U.S. criticism of their leader.

A similar entropy strategy emerged months

before the April 30, 2003 release of “The

Roadmap to Peace” when a Sharon-related

scandal again threatened the region with

disorder and instability. That potential

entropy enabled Sharon (and Tel Aviv) to

avoid engagement with the international

community’s proposed structure for final

status negotiations.

To combat those skilled at the strategic use

of entropy requires that the future well-being

of Israel no longer play a role in U.S.

foreign policy. Tel Aviv’s oft-proven

capacity to avoid accountability makes the

Zionist state an inappropriate ally for a

nation dedicated to the rule of law. And

makes Israel an unsuitable entity for

membership as a legitimate member of the

United Nations.

The potential instability and disorder that

policy-makers fear is the aspect that gives

entropy its power over policy-making. By

denying Israel the legitimacy of nation state

status on which an entropy strategy depends,

the threat of instability and disorder within

its government loses its potential for

geopolitical manipulation.

The Field-based Analyses of a Criminal USA

The Criminal USA chronicles how the people in

between manipulate decision-making by

“preparing the minds” to grant veracity to

duplicity. With their asymmetric influence

in media, politics and popular culture, the

informed choice of democracy is gradually

displaced by induced beliefs. As fiction

displaces facts, self-governance fades.

No one has yet tallied the costs to America

of its entangling alliance with an extremist

Jewish nation founded with U.S. help in the

midst of the Islamic Middle East. Those

costs include not only the fiscal costs of

arms packages but also indirect costs due to

the perception of the U.S. as a threat to other

nations – because of its support for Israel.

The perceived legitimacy of the Zionist state

traces its origins to Harry Truman, an earlier

Zionist-inclined U.S. president. Over the

strenuous objections of General George

Marshall, Truman’s Secretary of State, the

U.S. agreed to recognize, arm and defend a

Zionist entity’s presence in the Middle East.

A forthcoming Criminal State series tallies

America’s burden in terms of foregone

opportunities – for infrastructure, healthcare,

education, retirement security and other

priorities, both domestic and foreign.

The costs of this alliance remain unknown

except in dollar terms. In terms of funds

appropriated and requested for ongoing wars

in the Middle East, the fiscal cost now tops


$450 billion plus an additional $196 billion

requested for fiscal year 2008.

The Congressional Budget Office estimated

the wars could cost $1.7 - $2.4 trillion over

the decade, including as much as $705

billion in interest payments. War-planner

Paul Wolfowitz put the total cost at $50

billion that the Iraqis could pay themselves.

In terms of credibility and moral stature, the

costs are incalculable. The risks to U.S.

national security continue to escalate as

consensus belief in The Clash of

Civilizations and the Global War on

Terrorism becomes an on-the-ground reality.

As long as the shared ideology of the people

in between remains unknown, the identity of

this common foe will remain in the shadows.

So long as their influence on the field of

consciousness remains unfettered, this form

of unconventional warfare will persist. As

long as this entangling alliance endures, the

outcome will remain “perfectly predictable.”

Media remains the “oxygen of democracy.”

Without it, self-governance lacks the

information and citizen feedback required

for informed consent. According to the

society of professional journalists, “public

enlightenment is the forerunner of justice

and the foundation of democracy.”

When the people in between created a media

environment that displaced the facts

essential for informed choice, they declared

war on self-governance. When bias and

undisclosed agendas are deployed to shape a

pre-conceived consensus, democracy is

displaced by the agenda of the middleman.

By focusing their influence on media,

politics and popular culture, the Information

Age morphed into info-tainment. The 1991

release of the film JFK depicted a 1967 trial

in New Orleans that sought to blame the

CIA for the Kennedy assassination. By

1997, three-quarters of Americans polled

believed the Hollywood storyline, fueling

cynicism and distrust of government.

Absent access to unbiased facts, the public

lacks the means required to hold government

accountable. And government loses the

legitimacy required to represent the public.

Decision-making then reflects not the

desires of an enlightened citizenry but the

designs of those skilled at displacing

freedom with Information Age fascism.

The funding for JFK was raised by Israeli

producer Arnon Milchan who worked as an

intermediary between Tel Aviv and U.S.

defense firms, including acting as a

middleman for the Hawk missile and the

Patriot missile air defense system.

While helping Israel develop its arms export

industry, Milchan also served as Tel Aviv’s

intermediary with South Africa. While

America resisted South Africa’s apartheid

program, Milchan facilitated its nuclear

weapons program. A classic example of pop

culture’s people in between, Milchan

remains a potent force in the use of cinema

to displace fact with fiction.

Incompetence or Treason?

In mid-October, Lt. General Ricardo

Sanchez, former senior commander of U.S.

forces in Iraq, described the war in Iraq as “a

nightmare with no end in sight.” Charging

“a glaring and unfortunate display of

incompetent strategic leadership within our

national leaders,” he characterized as the

handling of the war as “incompetent.”

General Sanchez voiced his concern that

“the American military finds itself in an

intractable situation…with no choice but to

continue our efforts in Iraq.” Charging that

“the best we can do with this flawed

approach is stave off defeat,” he cited a


“crisis in national political leadership” that

was “derelict in their duties.”

Media outlets faithfully reported his critique

of civilian leaders. Yet only online media

reported that he laid much of the blame on

the undisclosed bias of media and its

“uncontrolled political propaganda.”

Meanwhile a presidential election looms

where $100 million in fundraising is

required for media to take a candidate

seriously. Much of that money is paid to

media for candidate airtime. As elsewhere,

the people in between wield disproportionate

influence in framing voter choices while

pocketing outsized profits in the process.

Thus, it should come as no surprise to find

that the top-three fundraisers for presidential

candidate Barack Obama are pro-Israelis:

Crown, Pritzker and Soros. Or that this

Illinois Senator sponsored the same bill that

Tom Lantos sponsored in the House to

encourage disinvestment in Iranian firms

The Lantos-Obama legislation was modeled

after anti-apartheid initiatives that helped

end South Africa’s system of racial

separation. To date, no one in the Congress,

black or white, has proposed disinvestment

legislation to encourage an end to Israel’s

apartheid system for the Palestinians.

An End to Legitimacy

For the people in between, the target is not

Iran. The target is the region – Afghanistan,

Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan. Plus

Pakistan and India, countries that, like Israel

and North Korea, remain non-signatories to

the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Game theory suggests it’s not Iran but Israel

that needs most urgently to disarm. The

present danger threat of WWIII lies not in

Tehran but in Tel Aviv as the only capital in

the region with nuclear capability – i.e., the

very capability that a U.S. President sought

to preclude in 1963 to prevent the arms race

in the region that now threatens WWIII.

Logic suggests that a regional nuclear-free

zone must begin by disarming the nation in

possession of nuclear arms.

While portraying itself the perennial victim,

Israel catalyzed serial crises to its strategic

advantage. By steadily pitting two sides

against the other, Tel Aviv gradually

expanded its influence region-wide and

worldwide. By retaining the potential to

deploy weapons that it assured the U.S. it

was not developing, the Zionist state became

and remains a threat to regional stability.

The consistency of Israel’s duplicitous

conduct since its founding suggests that its

Zionist founders intended from the outset to

rely on deception to wage war in pursuit of a

long-term agenda for Greater Israel.

Just as pro-Israelis argue that force should

be used to compel Iran to abandon its

potential access to nuclear weapons, force

may be required to ensure that Israel

abandons its arsenal of nuclear weapons.

To restore U.S. national security requires

candor about the common source of this

unconventional warfare. To improve the

prospects for global peace, the U.S. is

obliged to acknowledge the danger to peace

created when an American president

supported Zionist extremists in gaining the

status of nation-state legitimacy.

Once an informed global public grasps the

duplicitous field-based influence exerted by

the people in between, democracies can

mobilize the rule of law to identify and

indict their operatives worldwide. And to

ensure that never again is extremism granted

the legitimacy of nation state status....