Saturday, February 19, 2011

ZOG in America flying blind in the wind.....


Turmoil among America’s client states in the Middle East is fracturing the foundation of our strategic position in the region. As of now, Washington policymakers are refraining from dashing about in public crying; “the sky is falling.” That is a good thing. Rather, they seem to be flapping their wings excitedly within the confines of the coop. There are no signs yet of rigorous and deliberate efforts to rethink the fundamentals of American policy. That is a bad thing. Were our leaders inclined to do so, it would be sensible to start with some indisputable givens....

One, Washington does not bear direct responsibility for either the popular challenge to autocracy or the attempts at its brutal suppression. We must finally acknowledge that there are forces at work beyond our control or even influence. Two, we are stuck though with allies in the Gulf who have shown their true colors as thuggish, corrupt regimes. They have draw a line of blood between themselves and their people that will endure. Which side are you on becomes the overriding question for all. Three, the American tightrope act of simultaneously casting ourselves as the champions of democracy and freedom, on the one hand, and clear eyed realists who are rock solid backers of its friends, on the other, has suffered a disabling fall. Four, it is suicidal to pretend that the United States somehow can revert to the foreign policy perspective ante with just a few tactical adjustments. That is most certainly true in regard to its servile relationship with Israel. Five, the current team calling the shots in Washington is not ready to do anything more than muddle through. From Barack Obama on down, they have neither the insight into the Middle East’s intricate politics, nor the diplomatic skill, nor the experience, nor the strength of character to reset the bearings for a fresh course. Running through one’s mind the backgrounds of Obama, Biden (Mubarak is not a dictator), Donilon, Clinton, Gates, Panetta, Clapper and their deputies, it is stunning to realize that there is not one who has more than a cursory understanding of the region’s culture, history and personalities. At this moment of epochal change, the United States is flying through a fog bank while wearing distorting lenses with the drone of ‘stay the course’ in their ear phones. This is world change you can believe it. It is the capacity to cope with it that evokes disbelief. Michael Brenner

To realign its regional strategy, the US would have to drop its Israel-centric foreign policy and readjust relations with the Arab states, Turkey, and Iran.The pro-Israel Lobby dominates the White House and the Congress. Thus, given present US domestic politics, it is likely we will stay wedded to our mutual suicide pact with Israel. Other major powers -- China, Russia, EU states, Japan -- can make adjustments. As they are less constrained by international Zionism, they may be in a position to exploit new opportunities offered by the "winds of change" in the region.


http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/02/19/how-zionism-infiltrated-the-us-exclusive-interview/


The fact is that the Arab "Street" (public opinion) despises US foreign policy. We just vetoed a UN resolution condemning Israeli illegal settlements. What signal does that send about Obama and about the US to the Arab Street?

Obama seething over Clinton, Biden, and Gates backroom foreign policy....

February , 2011 -- Hillary Clinton on her way out; Obama has lost faith in her loyalty to him

Our normally reliably informed sources are reporting that President Obama, upset that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had urged him, under false pretenses, to name as the president's special envoy to Egypt, Frank Wisner, Jr, has strongly privately suggested that Clinton ought to submit her resignation. Obama has also, according to our sources, offered the Secretary of State job to Senator John Kerry (D-MA), who has signaled his willingness to accept.

Clinton, Vice President Joe Biden, and Defense Secretary Robert Gates, according to a New York Times report, backed the naming of Wisner, a long-time CIA agent-of-influence who has operated under State Department official cover as a diplomat for decades, is a close personal friend of Egyptian ex-President Hosni Mubarak, a relationship developed when Wisner served as President Reagan's ambassador to Cairo.

Obama, according to our sources, was unaware of Wisner's close ties to Mubarak and was shocked to discover that Clinton, Biden, and Gates were aware that Wisner was offering lightly-conditional U.S. support to Mubarak, while Obama was urging a quick transition of power. It was the vote of confidence in Mubarak from the trio of Clinton, Biden, and Gates that delayed, for an entire day, Mubarak's previously-reported departure from office. Mubarak was given the false impression by Wisner that the Egyptian leader had the full support of Clinton, Biden, and Gates and, therefore, the president also. It was not the case.

It turns out that Clinton, Biden, and Gates were following the dictates of key players in the pro-Mubarak Israel Lobby in Washington and the Council on Foreign Relations in New York rather than from the policy-makers in the office of the President. We have also learned that Obama is scaling back Biden's involvement in fundamental foreign policy issues, preferring his interaction with key foreign governments, especially those in the Middle East, to be limited to public diplomacy and social functions.

Gates has announced he is leaving his post during 2011, however, Obama now needs Gates's continued support to shepherd a Defense budget, minus key pet weapons systems, through a hawkish Republican House of Representatives.

However, it is Mrs. Clinton who has earned Obama's focused anger. The White House was shocked when Wisner, after having returned from Cairo, told the Munich Security Conference by a video-link from New York that a temporarily leadership role for Mubarak was required during the transition phase in Egypt. Wisner also echoed the views of the Israel Lobby that America's primary position in post-Mubarak Egypt was a firm commitment to the peace treaty with Israel and freezing out the Muslim Brotherhood from any political power. Except for the peace treaty issue, Wisner's comments largely contradicted Obama's policy but reflected those of Clinton, Biden, and Gates.

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs told a news conference: "Former Ambassador Wisner is not an employee of the government . . . his views on who should or shouldn't be the head of Egypt don't represent the views of our administration." But unbeknown to Obama and Gibbs, Wisner's views did represent those of a significant faction of the administration.


What infuriated Obama was Clinton's brash lie after she listened to Wisner's video speech in Munich, enunciating views that she supported: "Oh, we all respect Frank and his service for many years, and appreciate his travel to Egypt. But he does not speak for the administration." Clinton had also stated in Munich that the administration supported the Muslim Brotherhood's participation in the Egyptian political dialogue but she covertly was undermining any role for the Muslim Brotherhood in encouraging Wisner's comments to the security conference.

Obama was also irked by Wisner's comments -- and Clinton's covert support for them -- to the Munich conference, made to key American allies and showing them that the United States appeared to have different policies on the events unfolding in Egypt. Witnessing America's schizophrenic foreign policy in Munich were British Prime Minister David Cameron and German Chancellor Angela Merkel. Obama was required to personally call both leaders, as well as others, to explain that what Wisner stated publicly and what Clinton reportedly said privately were not the president's policy. Obama has let it be known that he will not be embarrassed again by Clinton and that is what is prompting his desire for her resignation and her replacement by Kerry. Obama relied on Kerry to interface with Egyptian leaders to fully delineate Obama's policies amid the confusion created by Clinton, Biden, and Gates....


The dilemmas facing US policy-makers in the Middle East have sharpened. Even as President Obama is seeking to concentrate on budgetary issues in the face of a potential March 4th government shutdown if, as appears probable, no new appropriations mechanism is agreed, events on the ground are forcing his hand. His calls for restraint in Bahrain bring into sharp focus the conflicting US interests between supporting political reform and not destabilizing long-time US allies. The US remains supportive of the democratizing power of the Internet and new media while at the same time concerned at the revolutionary implications. The US veto of a draft UN resolution critical of Israeli settlement policy has also caused much internal debate within foreign policy circles. White House officials tell us privately that Obama’s instincts are to be more openly supportive of the demonstrators on the street, especially in Libya and Iran, and to take a harder line with Israel. He is, however, being constrained by the caution of his top advisers, most notably Secretary of State Clinton, and inputs from Saudi Arabia. Against this background, it can be expected that US policy in the Middle East will continue to face an awkward learning curve. As one senior National Security Official commented to us: “We need to have things both ways.” Military-to-military ties – which proved decisive at the height of the Egyptian crisis – will remain crucial. These are in play as the US tries to defuse a simmering conflict with Pakistan. The politics of US foreign policy are also in flux. Public support of the war in Afghanistan is flagging and at a recent conservative convention in Washington DC, there was open support for an isolationist approach, something of a recurrent phenomenon in American politics and especially associated with difficult economic times. A number of the new Republican intake into the House of Representatives, including those influenced by the Tea Party, seem willing to look at defense reductions. To date these have been fairly trivial in proportion to the size of the total defense budget, but more are likely to be on the way. Foreign aid and State Department spending face especially hostile scrutiny. Overall, the civilian resources available for the US international role are likely to decline, potentially quite sharply....


http://truthjihad.blogspot.com/2011/02/mossad-agent-mike-harari-implicated-in.html#comments



....A bump in the road says DC luminaries....
"... more important, Bahrain is a virtual satellite of Saudi Arabia, the world's largest oil exporter. Saudis drive across a 15-mile-long causeway for weekend breaks in a country that allows alcohol and tolerates prostitution. They also use Manama as a banking center, and they like having the U.S. Navy there — not on Saudi territory but nearby.
In the eyes of the Obama administration, Bahrain was a model "modernizing monarchy." Its royals attended American schools, effusively welcomed visiting U.S. officials...(i Mean WOW!)
"I am very impressed by the progress Bahrain is making on all fronts — economically, politically, socially," Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said the last time she visited Manama, in December...., the ebullient foreign minister replied, "Maybe a bump in the road, but we're moving forward."
But Bahrain has problems, and in hindsight they look bigger than speed bumps.

Bahrain's Sunni minority has institutionalized discrimination against the Shiite majority to keep control of the country's government, military and economy. Parliamentary districts are gerrymandered, so only 18 of 40 seats in the elected Assembly are held by Shiites. The military's officer corps is entirely Sunni...
The United States has less leverage in Bahrain than it did in Egypt. Egypt's military needed U.S. economic and military aid; Bahrain's royal family likes its alliance with the United States but doesn't need it nearly as much as it needs Saudi Arabia. Bahrain's King Hamed ibn Isa Khalifa, 61, is a weak ruler. He began his reign in 1999 with promises of reform, but in practice his regime has oscillated between periods of modest liberalization and harsh repression.
Much of the real power is wielded by the king's uncle, Khalifa ibn Salman Khalifa, who has been prime minister for almost 40 years. Khalifa, 75, is a pro-Saudi conservative who has worked to slow democratization — and, along the way, has made himself one of the richest men in the kingdom, leading to widespread charges of corruption...
The U.S. favorite in the royal family is the king's eldest son, Crown Prince Salman ibn Hamed Khalifa, 41. He's a U.S.-educated modernizer (i love this part!) and he told a conference in Turkey last week that the events in Egypt should spur Bahrain to continue its reforms. But Salman hasn't been able to get past his great-uncle, the prime minister.
If the uprising gets out of hand, there's little danger that the monarchy will be overthrown. The Saudis, who don't want to see that kind of precedent, would almost surely intervene to prop up the royal family, no matter what the Obama administration said.....


In Bahrain and elsewhere, history is calling our bluff."



Today, the world witnesses a new sense of Arab unity and identity especially among the educated youth with their social media and generally modernist self-identity. For older generations, memories of Nasser and pan-Arabism return.


This new sense of Arab identity drives the re-awakening of a culture of resistance which, for now, is a resistance to local tyrants. It is inevitable as the democratization process continues, in whatever form, that a renewed culture of resistance to Israel will develop given decades of aggressive Israeli behavior.


Egypt’s special relationship with Israel was organized under pressure from Washington during the Sadat years with the 1979 peace treaty is the pivot. The treaty neutralized Egypt and removed Israeli concerns about a southern front. Israel thus gained a “free hand” for regional aggression. Wars against Lebanon and increased repression of the Palestinians followed.


The peace treaty sank Egypt’s traditional influence in the Arab world.
Mubarak followed the Sadat policy and conspired with Israel to maintain its occupation of the West Bank and of the largest open air concentration camp in the world, Gaza. The Mubarak regime facilitated a false negotiating process on the Palestine Question and the doomed “two-state” solution. The regime looked the other way when Israel undertook aggressive wars and actions in the region.

The public in the Arab world does not like Israel, its treatment of Palestinians, and its regional aggression. Should democratization become institutionalized in the Arab world, governments will be under pressure to respond not only to public concern about domestic issues but also to public concern about foreign policy issues, mainly Israel.


Will Egypt regain its lost weight in the Arab world now in ferment? Will the Egyptian public demand their government to take a new look at the peace treaty? Will the Egyptian public demand their government to open the Gaza border at Rafah? Will the Egyptian public to demand their government to implement a just policy on the Palestine Question?

What about Tunisia now in a democratization process? And what about other Arab states?

The “winds of change” sweeping the Arab world alter the dynamics of regional politics and strategy and propel Washington into a dilemma. Washington cannot continue an Israel- centric foreign policy without increasingly negative external and internal consequences.

To the degree that Washington maintains its Israel-centric foreign policy it will continue to decline in influence in the region. Other major powers inevitably will step in to exploit new opportunities.

The American people may well begin to see more starkly the undue influence of the pro-Israel Lobby over Congress and the White House. As a consequence, relations between gentile and jewish communities in the United States may come into question as attitudes (and hearts) harden. Growing problems in the American economy may sharpen such cleavages in society particularly if they are related to foreign policy disasters caused by the pro-Israel Lobby.


Gentile Americans may come to see the pro-Israel Lobby as an “existential” problem. Given the demographic situation in Israel which will produce an Arab Muslim and Christian majority in the medium term, Israel has limited choices. The “two-state” solution has been a dead letter for a decade despite the macabre faux diplomacy of the “peace process”.


There are two choices for Israel under present conditions: a “one-state” bi-national solution or mass expulsion of Arabs from Israel. Will the next war Israel unleashes be used as a cover for mass expulsion of Arabs?
Just how will the White House and Congress respond to America’s Middle East dilemma? Will Washington attempt to covertly assist counterrevolution so as to have “stable” regimes to repress Arab publics in the interest of Israel and the status quo ante? Will Washington promote democracy in the region thereby strengthening the Arab culture of resistance to Israel?


What will Washington’s policy be when Israel unleashes its inevitable next war? Such a war, if combined with mass expulsion, could provoke a general regional war. Then what?

CLIFFORD KIRACOFE

In no Arab country, with the exception of Lebanon with its proportional democracy, are there significant signs of an emerging civil society. Nowhere is there a democratic tradition which could provide a basis for those who plan to govern in the wake of the revolutions of recent weeks, not to mention those revolutions that could still be to come...
1) Elevate CIA/MOSSAD shenanigans and Disinformation...and throw a few punches at Bush and Reagonomics... 2) Mention the colonial sins of France and England, then mix the brew so that America seems guilty of their sins.... 3) Ignore the effects of Nazism and communism on the thinking... 4) Ignore the effects of tribalism, cousin marriage, and power-seeking radical imams. 5) Throw lots of money at the problem, preferably ignoring the opportunities for corruption this brings with it.... 6) Ignore the touchy macho ego and the inability to admit to faults and fallibilities.....

Meanwhile, South Asia is turning into An alarming powder keg...





....


Posted by at
Labels: