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.
– 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
• 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.
• 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
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
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
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
• 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
• 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
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
• Emerging Olmert-related scandals
served notice that the government may
fall prior to (or during) the Annapolis
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-
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
• 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
• “We will not allow Iran to have a
• 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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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....http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/NWO/Rothschild_Grail.htm