Thursday, April 20, 2006

Neocon Jibes: Who are the Neocons?

There is a great deal of confusion as to the neocons’ identity. Most americans see them as just another group of americans. However, justin raimondo and paul sheldon foote claim they’re trotskyists. "One reason for the lack of a significant opposition to the neo-conservatives (neo-Trotskyites) has been the success of the neo-conservatives (neo-Trotskyites) in infiltrating both the Democratic and Republican parties. While it is easy for communists to find a home within the Democratic Party, the neo-conservatives (neo-Trotskyites) scored a major victory in conning conservatives that neo-conservatives (neo-Trotskyites) are former communists. As Trotskyites, they were anti-Stalin but not anti-communist. Their support for President Ronald Reagan’s efforts to cause the collapse of the Soviet Union and their claims that communism is dead have enabled them to dupe conservatives. Left-wing authors have helped the neo-conservatives (neo-Trotskyites) by accusing them of being in the extreme right wing. The fact remains that many neo-conservatives (neo-Trotskyites) support the communist takeover of Iran by the Iranian Communist MEK (Rajavi Cult) terrorists." (Paul Sheldon Foote ‘Neo-conservative (Neo-Trotskyite) Successes in the Democratic and Republican Parties’ pfoote@fullerton.edu December 30, 2005). Wouldn’t this make them russians?

Paul craig roberts describes them as "Jacobins". (Paul Craig Roberts ‘How Conservatives Went Crazy’ http://www.antiwar.com/roberts/?articleid=8513 February 8, 2006). As does kurt nimmo, "In fact, this is the only approach, as long ago sketched out by the Straussian neocons and their Jabotinksyite overlords, and diplomacy is but a shell game introduced to make the neocons appear reasonable, when in fact they are neo-Jacobin radicals." (Kurt Nimmo ‘Profs Document Hijacking of U.S. Foreign Policy’ http://kurtnimmo.com/?p=297 March 21st 2006). Doesn’t this imply they’re french? But then again weren’t the jacobins scottish or was that the jacobites?

Is it possible the neocons are really iranians? Ever since the pentagon and new york (p*ny) bombings america’s foreign policies seem to have inadvertently boosted iran’s political and military power. Firstly, the neocons supported america’s invasion of afghanistan and the overthrowing the taliban - the implacable enemy of shia iran. Secondly, they manipulated america into the invasion of iraq – iran’s biggest adversary. If this wasn’t enough, they tried to replace saddam with another dictator - ahmed chalabi - who turned out to be an iranian double agent. Thirdly, the neocons’ coalition provisional authority dismantled the iraqi army thereby giving iran automatic military supremacy over iraq. The neocons then demanded national elections which allowed iraqi shiites, allies of iran, to win and take over the iraqi state. Fifthly, they forced syria to remove its army from the lebanon giving default power to hezbollah which has been trained, armed, and financed, by iran. Sixthly, the neocons then insisted on free elections in palestine only for the palestinians to elect hamas - another iranian ally. If all this wasn’t enough, over the last couple of years, the neocons have continually denounced iran’s efforts to develop civilian nuclear energy. All this did was to alienate the vast majority of iranians who responded by voting for a hardliner, mahmud ahmadinejad, as iran’s new president. In other words, the neocons pushed iranians into voting for a hardline regime which otherwise they were unlikely to have voted for. Ahmadinejad is now promoting former revolutionary guards who fought so heroically against saddam’s army, in order to consolidate his political power. So in a matter of a few, short years the neocons have used america to boost iran’s power in afghanistan, iraq, lebanon, and palestine, and to boost the power of hardliners within iranian politics.

Perhaps the neocons are just parasites? Scott ritter thinks so. "The neocons are parasites. They build nothing. They bring nothing. They don't have a foundation. They don't stand for business. They don't stand for ideology. They use a host to facilitate and grow their own power. They are parasites that latch onto oil until it is no longer convenient. They latch on to democracy until it is no longer convenient." (Scott Ritter quoted in Larisa Alexandrovna’s ‘Scott Ritter: Neocons as Parasites’ http://www.alternet.org/story/21631 March 30, 2005).

Raimondo regards the jews only state in palestine (jos) as parasitic on america, "The Israelis, on the other hand, are not passive recipients of aid and instructions from Washington. They, like the Brits, are forced to recognize the new world reality of American power, but, unlike London, the Israelis assume an aggressive stance. The Israeli idea of an alliance is not so much a union of interests as a symbiosis, in which one partner uses the other to pursue its own interests: the ally is treated, not as a comrade-in-arms but as a cat's-paw. It is a strategy of parasitism that has been so successful that the host is beginning to feel the first debilitating effects – fatigue, nausea, and the sudden shocking realization that something isn't quite right." (Justin Raimondo ‘With Friends Like This’ http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=6852 August 3, 2005); "When a parasite invades, it hides as long as it can, sucking the vital juices and draining the energy of its host. Yet there is a limit to what the host can tolerate: eventually, it either builds up an immunity to the depredations of its "guest," or it is sucked dry and exhausted to the point of near-death. Having used up nearly all available military and economic resources in Iraq, the U.S. has a choice: it can either build up an immunity to Israeli influence, even a partial one, or it can let itself be turned into a dry husk, a casualty of Tel Aviv's ambitions." (Justin Raimondo ‘Spy With a Heart of Gold?’ http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=8441 January 25, 2006).

Whilst raimondo believes the jos is parasitic on america he does not believe the same can be said about jews. In order to avoid the corollary that jews are parasitic on america, he switches focus from the jos (where jews are undeniably in power) to the neocons and then argues that not all neocons are jewish. He rightly argues that what is politically important about the neocons is that their prime, almost their sole, political interest, is the promotion of the interests of the jos. "Any mention of the term "neoconservatives" is taken by Dershowitz to mean "Jews" – but this is clearly not the case, as many neocons are not Jewish, although Jews are disproportionately represented in their ranks. But, then again, Jews are over-represented in the ranks of the libertarian movement, the leftist movement, the antiwar movement, and probably a good many other ideological movements of one sort or another. That the neocons put special emphasis on their affinity for and support of Israel – as a matter of high principle – is directly relevant to the argument of Mearsheimer and Walt that attributes their influence on administration policy to its present state of distortion – not because the neocons are Jews, but because they are neocons.." (Justin Raimondo ‘Smear and Fear’ http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=8832 April 10, 2006).

By arguing that the neocons are an ecumenical movement, raimondo believes he can avoid any accusation of anti-semitism. The leading lights of the neocons are jews. The core of the jewish lobby is jewish, "The core of the Lobby is comprised of American Jews who make a significant effort in their daily lives to bend U.S. foreign policy so that it advances Israel’s interests." (John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt ‘The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy’ rwp_06_011_walt.pdf March 2006 p.12). Both the neocons and the jewish lobby are thoroughly jewish. So what if non-jews jump on this bandwagon and are willing to betray their own country for the sake of the jos? They’re politically irrelevant. The bandwagon has been built by jews, it has been paid for by jews, it is driven by jews, and it is heading for the racially pure jos. So what if a few non-jewish traitors jump on for the ride – they make no difference other than helping this fifth column achieve their objectives. They are jewish groupies. They are politically irrelevant to the neocons/lobby except in so far as they enable the jewish neocons/lobby to pretend they aren’t jewish. Raimondo would rather accuse non-jews of being traitors to their own country than to accuse the neocons of being jewish traitors to america. What, it has to be asked is non-jewish about the jewish neocons and the jewish lobby?

Raimondo’s position on the nature of the neocons is reinforced by a similar stance he takes over what he calls the israeli lobby. He refuses to call it ‘the jewish lobby’ despite the fact that this is what it is called in the jos. "In fact, anyone who says that there is an Israel Lobby runs the risk of being charged with anti-Semitism, even though the Israeli media themselves refer to America’s ‘Jewish Lobby’." (John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt ‘The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy’ rwp_06_011_walt.pdf March 2006 p.24)..

Raimondo believes the jewish lobby is as ecumenical as the neocon movement. His analysis is so weak he has to resort to a misreading of john j. mearsheimer and stephen m. walt in order to give this stance any credibility. He states, "Furthermore, Mearsheimer and Walt explicitly stated that Jews are not the only or even the most influential members of the Lobby: evangelical Christians are by far more numerous and carry much more political weight in their unconditional support for the Jewish state." (Justin Raimondo ‘Smear and Fear’ http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=8832 April 10, 2006). As has been pointed out earlier, mearsheimer and walt state that the core of the lobby is jewish. They do not state that the christian zionists are more powerful than the jewish component of the lobby. The statement "evangelical Christians are by far more numerous and carry much more political weight in their unconditional support for the Jewish state" is raimondo’s own fantasy.

It is easy for anyone to get lost in this terminological maze that jews use to cover up their traitorous role in american politics. Why don’t people just say what they are? Thankfully one commentator is willing to do so. "The neo-con movement has been a Jewish movement from the beginning, which started with Carl Gershman at the National Endowment for Democracy, and Tom Kahn, with the AFL-CIO’s Department of International Affairs, with Richard Perle working for Henry Jackson, with Norman Podhortez, Michael Ledeen Irving Kristol, Douglas Feith, and on and on. One can count the number of non-Jewish neo-cons virtually on both hands." (Jeffrey Blankfort’s comments on Mitchell Plitnick’s ‘Myth and Reality: Jewish Influence on US Middle East Policy’ May 24th 2005). "The neo-cons who are almost exclusively Jewish and the Israel lobby got the US into the war in Iraq. The father of the President, the first George Bush was against it, the oil companies were against it. (Jeffrey Blankfort quoted in Réseau Voltaire ‘The Chomsky/Blankfort Polemic’ http://signs-of-the-times.org/signs/editorials/signs_TheChomskyBlankfortPolemic.php February 20, 2006). Some jewish neocons/lobbyists are also citizens of the jos. They are not merely dual citizens but jewish traitors pushing america into moral, political, and military, bankruptcy for the benefit of the jos.

The jewish neocons used to deny they were jewish by pointing out their many non-jewish supporters. But a couple of years into the debacle of america’s proxy zionist invasion of iraq many of these non-jewish members have bailed out thereby making the jewish composition of the neocon movement even more pronounced. "It has taken more three years, the loss of tens of thousands of Iraqi and American lives, and the expenditure of $200 billion - all to achieve a chaos verging on open civil war. But finally the neoconservatives who sold the United States on this disastrous war are starting to utter three small words. We were wrong. The second thoughts have spread across the conservative spectrum, from William Buckley, venerable editor of the National Review, to Andrew Sullivan, once editor of the New Republic, now influential commentator and blogmeister. The patrician, conservative, Washington Post columnist George Will was gently skeptical from the outset. He now glumly concludes that all three members of the original "axis of evil" - not only Iran and North Korea but also Iraq - "are more dangerous than when that term was coined in 2002." Of all the critiques, however, the most profound is that of Francis Fukuyama, in his forthcoming book "America at the Crossroads." Its subtitle is "Democracy, Power and the Neo-Conservative Legacy," and that legacy, Fukuyama argues, is fatally poisoned." (Rupert Cornwell ‘What the neocons failed to foresee about Iraq’ http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/262583_neoconswrong12.html March 12, 2006).

For many years the neocons have pretended to be an ecumenical movement but, as it has become increasingly difficult to determine america’s interests in the middle east, their non-jewish followers are deserting so the only ones left are the jewish traitors.

Monday, April 17, 2006

Mundi Club’s Blogsite – List of Blogs

I’m having trouble adding new posts to my blogsite at http://mundiclub.blogspot.com/ so I’ve opened a new one. This blog provides an index to all of my old and new blogs on both blogsites.


If you want to offer additional information, criticize, or comment on, any of the articles that appear on this blogsite or on the mundi club's website at http://www.geocities.com/carbonomics/

then please get in touch with us at carbonomics@yahoo.co.uk

We don't mind criticism but constructive criticism will almost certainly guarantee a response.

The Jews Stirring up War Against Iran..
Updated April 16th 2006


The Nuke Iran Roundup.
Updated April 15th 2006


The Jews-Only Lobby: A Review of ‘The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy.
Updated April 15th 2006


America Vanquished.
Published March 21st 2006


Commentators’ views on a Military or Nuclear Attack on Iran.
Updated March 13th 2006


The Left, and Right, Wing Anti-War Commentators Promoting the War on Iran.
Updated March 11th 2006


The Prospects of a Nuclear Attack on Iran. Part One: The War against Iran is getting Closer..
Updated March 7th 2006


The Prospects of a Nuclear Attack on Iran. Part Two: Iran’s Right to Militarily Defend Itself.
Updated March 7th 2006


The Prospects of a Nuclear Attack on Iran. Part Three: Initiating the war against Iran.
Updated March 7th 2006


The Prospects of a Nuclear Attack on Iran. Part Four: The Consequences of an Attack on Iran.
Updated March 7th 2006


The Prospects of a Nuclear Attack on Iran. Part Five: The Benefits to the Jews-only State of a Zog Attack on Iran.
Updated March 7th 2006


The Prospects of a Nuclear Attack on Iran. Part Six: The Jews-Only State’s Nuclear Blackmail of America.
Updated March 7th 2006


The Prospects of a Nuclear Attack on Iran. Part Seven: What are the Alternative Rationales for an Attack on Iran?.
Updated March 7th 2006


What’s in a Name? The Jews-only State in Palestine.
Updated March 5th 2006


The Jewish Nazis’ Final Solution.
Published February 28th 2006


Americans groveling at the feet of their Jewish Masters.
Published February 28th 2006


Summary Dismissal from Antiwar.com.
Published February 26th 2006


The Global Intifada against the Jewish Master Race.
Published February 19th 2006


Will America allow the Jews-Only State in Palestine to Develop Long Range Weapons of Mass Destruction that Threaten America? .
Published February 4th 2006


The Rise of the Jewish Empire: The Jewish Conquest of America.
Published February 1st 2006


Lovelock Squeaks the End is Nigh.
Published January 30th 2006

Comments on Justin Raimondo.
Published January 26th 2006


The Implementation of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion in Russia and America.
Published January 14th 2006


The Amazing Spectacle of America’s Self-Destruction: Zionists and Katrina (Part One).
Published November 21st 2005


The Amazing Spectacle of America’s Self-Destruction: Zionists and Katrina (Part Two).
Published November 21st 2005.

The Amazing Spectacle of America’s Self-Destruction: Zionists and Katrina (Part Three).
Published November 21st 2005.


An Anti-Iraq War; Anti-Iran War, and Anti-Zionist, Alliance.
Published August 16th 2005.


Questionable Oomans.
Published August 16th 2005.


The Jews Provoking the London Bombings.
Published July 8th 2005.


The Jews and Zionists Stirring up Racism in Britain.
Published July 6th 2005.


Juan Cole’s support for American Imperialism.
Published June 25th 2005.


How the Jewish Neocons are Bleeding America to Death.
Published April 13th 2005.


Why I’m a Holocaust Denier: The Sanctimonious Racism of the so-called Jewish Holocaust.
Published April 3rd 2005.


The Jews-Only State in Palestine: Part One.
Published March 26th 2005.


The Jews-Only State in Palestine: Part Two.
Published March 26th 2005.


The Jews-Only State in Palestine: Part Three.
Published March 26th 2005.


The Prospects of a New Race War.
Published March 18th 2005.


Goldberg Slam Dunks Cole.
Published February 8th 2005.


Busharon is Zionist Propaganda.
Published February 3rd 2005.


The Israeli Traitors Running America’s Invasion of Iraq: Part Two.
Published January 29th 2005.


The Israeli Traitors Running America’s Invasion of Iraq: Part One.
Published January 29th 2005.


The Zionist Cult - Seymour Hersch.
Published January 28th 2005.


Adam Curtis, the Neocons, and The Power of Nightmares.
Published January 23rd 2005.


The Rise of Zionist World Domination.
Published January 15th 2005.


Bush is Sharon’s Bitch.
Published January 6th 2005.


Israelis Importing Fascism into America.
Published January 4th 2005.


Israeli Traitors want to put Americans into Concentration Camps.
Published January 4th 2005.

The Jews Stirring up War Against Iran.

Published January 24th 2006.
Updated April 16th 2006.
This work is a follow up to another compilation, ‘The Commentators supporting the proposition that Jewish Zionists Initiated America’s Invasion of Iraq for the Benefit of the Zionist State in Palestine’. It is also a companion to another compilation, ‘Commentators’ views on a Military or Nuclear Attack on Iran’.

The jews-only state in palestine (jos) is mobilizing its supporters in america to push the bush administration into yet another proxy zionist war – this time against iran. In america, the political pressure for a war against iran is coming overwhelmingly from one sector of american society: the jewish sayanim network of mossad collaborators, the jewish dominated american media, the jewish lobby, the jewish-owned congress, and the israelis who have infiltrated the bush administration. The proposed war against iran is the most blatant example of a war concocted, planned, and marketed, by jews around the world solely for the benefit of the jos.

It is not the american oil industry which is leading the charge for such a war, "Except for the Israeli lobby in the US and its grass root Jewish American supporters and allies among the Presidents of the Major Jewish organizations there are no other organized lobbies pressuring for or against this war. The ritualistic denunciations of "Big Oil" whenever there is a Middle East conflict involving the US is in this instance a totally bogus issue, lacking any substance. All the evidence is to the contrary – big oil is opposed to any conflicts, which will upset their first major entry into Middle Eastern oil fields since they were nationalized in the 1970’s." (James Petras ‘Israel's War with Iran’ http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m19081&l=i&size=1&hd=0 December 28, 2005); "Somehow, the critics of Mearsheimer and Walt overlook the fact that George Bush Senior, his Secretary of State James Baker, both with closer ties to the oil industry than anyone in the current administration, as wells as former General Brent Scrowcroft, Bush Sr.'s National Security Advisor, publicly opposed the war from the outset." (Jeff Blankfort ‘AIPAC's Complaint by Eric Alterman’ jblankfort@earthlink.net April 15 2006).

It is not the american military which wants such a war. "Giraldi reports that several senior Air Force officers involved in the planning are appalled at the implications of what they are doing - that Iran is being set up for an unprovoked nuclear attack -but no one is prepared to damage his career by posing any objections." (Kevin B. Zeese ‘Attacking Iran: Hersh vs. Bush: Who Would You Believe? http://www.counterpunch.org/zeese04142006.html April 14, 2006); "Rumsfeld, under tremendous pressure from practically all of the top professional military officials, fears that an Israeli war will further accelerate US military losses. The pro-Israel lobby would like to replace the ultra-militarist Rumsfeld with the ultra-militarist Senator Joseph Lieberman, an unconditional Israel First Zealot." (James Petras ‘Israel's War with Iran’ http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m19081&l=i&size=1&hd=0 December 28, 2005); "Most of my US military acquaintances opposed the invasion. They did not doubt the coalition's ability to defeat Saddam's army swiftly and topple his regime. It was uncertainty about what would follow that rang warning bells. They identified from the outset precisely the difficulties that Messrs Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz contemptuously dismissed." (Max Hastings ‘The new definition of military valour - saying no to politicians’ http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1745729,00.html April 3, 2006).

It is not american economists wishing to promote american economic interests around the world.

Why should it be so surprising that the jewish lobby in america is more powerful than america’s gigantic multi-national oil companies or the american military? After all the jewish lobby has in the past defeated the pharmaceutical lobby and the farming lobby. "When, in recent years, the Israel lobby has gone head to head with the pharmaceutical lobby over Israel's right to export generic versions of the pharmaceutical industry's products to the US, the Israel lobby triumphed, even as it did 20 years ago when the agricultural lobby was unsuccessful in blocking a free trade agreement with Israel under the Reagan administration." (Jeff Blankfort ‘AIPAC's Complaint by Eric Alterman’ jblankfort@earthlink.net April 15 2006).

The main support for a war against iran comes overwhelmingly from the jews living in america – parasites who have colonized the american political system. Their sole concern is promoting policies which benefit the jos no matter how damaging this might be to america’s economic and national interests.

The Commentators who believe it is Jews in America who are Primarily Responsible for Stirring up a War against Iran.
Eric Margolis.
"The growing clamour over Iran's nuclear intentions, with rumblings about air strikes against Iran's reactors in the fall, may prove to be a part of just such a manufactured crisis. Remember, these latest fevered claims about Iran come from the same "reliable intelligence sources" and neo-conservative hawks who insisted Iraq had a vast arsenal of weapons of mass destruction that threatened the U.S., with intimate links to al-Qaida." (Eric Margolis ‘Those who deceived America into attacking Iraq may be at it again’ http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/Columnists/Toronto/Eric_Margolis/2004/07/25/556378.html July 25, 2004).

Martin Sieff.
"The pattern of preparation for this is all too familiar from the buildup to war with Iraq. First, the war drums are sounded by the same old "experts"; then they are amplified by alarmist columnists. Once you see Krauthammer or Ledeen opining, as they have over the past two months, that Iran's nuclear capability poses the gravest possible threat to Civilization as We Know It, and that The World Cannot Afford to Wait and Negotiate, then you can guarantee - conveniently close to the election to panic voters into supporting the president - that Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld will pick up the chorus. Ledeen has already written at least two columns on the subject. Krauthammer, prophet of the Iraq war, has made quite clear his determination to unleash a new one. In his July 23 Post column he wrote: "The long awaited revolution [in Iran] is not happening. Which makes the question of preemptive attack all the more urgent ... If nothing is done, a fanatical terrorist regime openly dedicated to the destruction of the 'Great Satan' will have both nuclear weapons and the terrorists and missiles to deliver them. All that stands between us and that is either revolution or preemptive strike."" (Martin Sieff ‘Today Iraq, Tomorrow Iran’ http://dir.salon.com/story/opinion/feature/2004/08/11/iran/ Aug. 11, 2004).

James Petras.
"Israel’s political and military leadership have repeatedly and openly declared their preparation to militarily attack Iran in the immediate future. Their influential supporters in the US have made Israel’s war policy the number one priority in their efforts to secure Presidential and Congressional backing. The arguments put forth by the Israeli government and echoed by their followers in the US regarding Iran’s nuclear threat are without substance or fact and have aroused opposition and misgivings throughout the world, among European governments, international agencies, among most US military leaders and the public, the world oil industry and even among sectors of the Bush Administration. An Israeli air and commando attack on Iran will have catastrophic military consequences for US forces and severe loss of human life in Iraq, most likely ignite political and military violence against pro-US Arab-Muslim regimes, such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt, perhaps leading to their overthrow. Without a doubt Israeli war preparations are the greatest immediate threat to world peace and political stability." (James Petras ‘Israel's War with Iran’ http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m19081&l=i&size=1&hd=0 December 28, 2005).

William S. Lind.
"In Washington, the same brilliant crowd who said invading Iraq would be a cakewalk is still in power. While a few prominent neocons have left the limelight, others remain highly influential behind the scenes. For them, the question is not whether to attack Iran (and Syria), but when. Their answer will be the same as Israel's." (William S. Lind ‘The Next Act’ http://www.antiwar.com/lind/?articleid=8486 February 2, 2006).

Jeffrey Blankfort.
"Why is the neocons/American Jewish establishment the only sector in US society pushing for a confrontation with Iran? And why with Iraq before that?" (Jeffrey Blankfort ‘War within Range? Another Neocon beats the drums for war and says it will happen in 10 weeks’ jblankfort@earthlink.net c.January 7th 2006); "And right at this moment, the only segment of the American society that is pushing the US administration to confront Iran, happens to be the Jewish establishment or the lobby, whose main focus for months – groups like AIPAC, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, but also other Jewish organizations - has been to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons." (Jeffrey Blankfort quoted in Réseau Voltaire ‘The Chomsky/Blankfort Polemic’ http://signs-of-the-times.org/signs/editorials/signs_TheChomskyBlankfortPolemic.php February 20, 2006); "The neo-cons who are almost exclusively Jewish and the Israel lobby got the US into the war in Iraq. The father of the President, the first George Bush was against it, the oil companies were against it. And despite the fact that the war is going so badly, they did not have to pay a political price because only a few isolated columnists, and but a few from the left, and none representing the anti-war movement in this country, wrote articles about that. So now, the same forces are now pushing for a US confrontation with Iran ..." (Jeffrey Blankfort quoted in Réseau Voltaire ‘The Chomsky/Blankfort Polemic’ http://signs-of-the-times.org/signs/editorials/signs_TheChomskyBlankfortPolemic.php February 20, 2006).

Edward S. Herman.
"The (american jewish) lobby and its representatives in the Bush administration were eager supporters of the attack on Iraq, and they are now fighting energetically for war against Iran- in fact the lobby is the only sector of society calling for a confrontation with Iran and it is already engaged in a major campaign on Bush and Congress to get the United States to take action." (Edward S. Herman ‘Western Approval for Long-Term Israeli Ethnic Cleansing’ Z Magazine March 2006).

Antony Loewenstein.
"Sadly, Israel and many of its supporters are at the forefront of demonising Iran and advocating military action. Not unlike Iraq, Iran is a perceived threat to the Jewish state and must therefore be obliterated. Israeli generals and politicians know Iran is not a serious threat but they never underestimate the political need to create a regional bogeyman to rally an ever-fearful Israeli population." (Antony Loewenstein ‘An Aussie Perspective: Spinning Us to War with Iran’ http://www.counterpunch.org/loewenstein03012006.html March 1, 2006).

Justin Raimondo.
"Remember how important the nuclear issue was for getting us into the Iraqi quagmire: this time around, the same crew is pushing the same button." (Justin Raimondo ‘Another War for Israel: The amen corner howls for war with Iran’ http://antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=8663 March 6, 2006).

Joseph Cirincione.
"The unfolding administration strategy appears to be an effort to repeat its successful campaign for the Iraq war. We cannot let the political or ideological agenda of a small group determine a national security decision that could create havoc in a critical area of the globe. Not again." (Joseph Cirincione ‘Fool Me Twice’ http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=3416 March 27, 2006). Refering here to the jewish neocons.

Jim Lobe.
"What makes the growing confrontation with Iran so remarkable is that the Israel Lobby appears to be the only major organized force here that is actively pushing it toward crisis. Mainstream analysts, including arms control hawks who favor strong pressure on Iran over its nuclear program, have spoken out against military action as far too risky and almost certainly counterproductive. Even analysts at the right-wing Heritage Foundation have voiced doubts. "It just doesn't make any sense from a geopolitical standpoint," said Heritage's James Carifano, noting Iran's capacity to retaliate against the U.S. in Iraq." (Jim Lobe ‘Iran Showdown Tests Power of Israel Lobby’ http://www.antiwar.com/lobe/?articleid=8843 April 12, 2006); "Far more visibly than any other domestic constituency, the Israel Lobby, defined by Profs. John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago and Stephen Walt, academic dean of Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, as "the loose coalition of individuals and organizations who actively work to shape U.S. foreign policy in a pro-Israel direction," has pushed the government – both Congress and the George W. Bush administration – toward confrontation with Tehran." (Jim Lobe ‘Iran Showdown Tests Power of Israel Lobby’ http://www.antiwar.com/lobe/?articleid=8843 April 12, 2006).

Charley Reese.
"The Israeli lobby pushing America to fight yet another war for Israel reminds me of what the French ambassador to Great Britain said at a party: "Why does the world allow this (expletive deleted) little country to cause so much trouble?"" (Charley Reese ‘Israel: The Dead Roach in America's Salad’ http://www.antiwar.com/reese/?articleid=8856 April 15, 2006).

The Jews in America stirring up a War against Iran.
Jewish efforts to manipulate america into an illegal, pre-emptive war against iran, like their efforts for an american invasion of iraq, go back a long way. Over the last decade and a half, america’s ruling jewish establishment has launched a succession of attack-iran propaganda campaigns. Although each of these campaigns have reached a crescendo without any military action being taken, it is not long before the lull is broken by the next campaign for war. There is virtually no opposition to such a war amongst america’s jewish community.

1990s.
The jos, the jewish sayanim network of mossad collaborators in america, the jewish dominated american media, the jewish lobby in america, the jewish-owned politicians in congress, and the jews in the clinton administration, started their campaign for an american military attack on iran in the early 1990s. In 1991, almost immediately after saddam hussein had been ejected from kuwait, and much of his army decimated, jews in america began highlighting the threats allegedly posed to the jos by its other major adversary.

The jewish lobby in america eventually forced the clinton administration into passing punitive economic measures against iran. "Pushing the US into a confrontation with Iran, via economic sanctions and military attack has been a top priority for Israel and its supporters in the US for more than a decade." (Jewish Times/Jewish Telegraph Agency, Dec. 6, 2005); "In 1995, former President Bill Clinton, in a speech to the World Jewish Congress, announced that he would not permit Conoco to make a petroleum deal with Iran. Clinton betrayed the interests of the American people." (Paul Sheldon Foote ‘James Petras’ "Israel’s War with Iran"’ pfoote@fullerton.edu December 30, 2005).

1996: A Clean Break.
In 1996, two jews who were politicians in america decided to write a foreign policy paper for a foreign power, the jos. In this paper they suggested ways in which the jos might increase its independence from the country these politicians were living in and supposed to be serving. Let’s put aside the possibility that this might be treasonous. What is important here is that this paper advocated a jos attack on iran. "In 1996, Richard Perle and Douglas Feith, two neo-conservatives later to play an important role in formulation of Bush administration's Pentagon policy in the Middle East, authored a paper for then newly elected Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu. That advisory paper, "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm", called on Netanyahu to make a "clean break from the peace process". Perle and Feith also called on Netanyahu to strengthen Israel's defenses against Syria and Iraq, and to go after Iran as the prop of Syria." (F William Engdahl ‘Why Iran's oil bourse can't break the buck’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HC10Ak01.html March 10th 2006).

1997: The Project for the New American Century.
It was not possible to publish ‘A Clean Break’ in america and hope the american government could be persuaded to implement the foreign policies of another country - the jos. So, instead, in 1997, an israeli writer living in america, rewrote the paper from an american perspective in which all the policies that were beneficial to the jos were miraculously transformed, by sheer loquacity, into policies that were supposedly beneficial for the united states of america. Although americans might be persuaded to think these policies would boost american interests, the policies, designed to serve the interests only of the jos were contrary to american interests. The ‘Project for the New American Century’ proposed the use of american military power to attack iran – supposedly for the benefit of the united states but, in actuality, for the benefit only of the jos. "That strategy (the plans for the attack on Iran) was worked out long ago in documents like the Project for the New American Century .." (Mike Whitney ‘Edging Towards Disaster with Iran’ http://www.opednews.com October 9th 2005). This zionist manifesto, signed by the leading jewish neocons, was an updated version of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. "Fukuyama, after all, was the most prominent intellectual who signed the 1997 "Project for the New American Century," the founding manifesto of neoconservatism drawn up by William Kristol, editor of The Weekly Standard, the house journal of the neoconservative movement. The Project for the New American Century aimed to cement for all time America's triumph in the Cold War, by increasing defense spending, challenging regimes that were hostile to U.S. interests and promoting freedom and democracy around the world. Its goal was "an international order friendly to our security, prosperity and values." The war on Iraq, spuriously justified by the supposed threat posed by Saddam's weapons of mass destruction, was the test run of this theory. It was touted as a panacea for every ill of the Middle East. The road to Jerusalem, the neocons argued, led through Baghdad. And after Iraq, why not Syria, Iran and anyone else who stood in Washington's way?" (Rupert Cornwell ‘What the neocons failed to foresee about Iraq’ http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/262583_neoconswrong12.html March 12, 2006).

2002.

President Bush’s Axis of Evil.
Despite the help iran gave to america during the invasion of afghanistan, and despite iran’s promise to help round up al quaeda operatives still at large in afghanistan, president bush turned his back on iran, "Shortly after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, Bush officials started meeting with Iranian officials. The two countries shared an interest in overthrowing the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, and they took cooperative steps toward that common goal; two decades of mutual hostility began to melt away. Then, in January 2002, President Bush delivered his State of the Union Address - linking Iran with Iraq and North Korea as an "axis of evil" - and the Iranians instantly ended all talks." (Fred Kaplan ‘Condi's Baffling New Iran Strategy’ http://www.slate.com/id/2136720/?nav=tap3 Feb. 21, 2006).

2003.
Real Jews push Americans to lay down their lives for the Jewish Cause in Tehran.
Even before bush had made any public decision to overthrow saddam’s regime, the jos, and its jewish allies in america, had mounted a propaganda offensive against the next target on their hit list of enemies. In early 2003, ariel sharon said Iran should be targeted "the day after" the invasion of iraq. "Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said yesterday that Iran, Libya and Syria should be stripped of weapons of mass destruction after Iraq. "These are irresponsible states, which must be disarmed of weapons mass destruction, and a successful American move in Iraq as a model will make that easier to achieve," Sharon said to a visiting delegation of American congressmen." (Aluf Benn ‘Sharon says U.S. should also disarm Iran, Libya and Syria’ http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=263941 February 18th 2003). This theme was quickly taken up by the jews in the bush administration, "Remember the braggadocio of Bush’s advisers in March 2003 when they joked that taking Baghdad wouldn’t be enough, nor would taking Damascus, because "real men go to Tehran." (Robert Parry ‘Neocon Amorality’ http://www.consortiumnews.com/2005/030305.html March 3, 2005).

William Kristol.
"The liberation of Iraq was the first great battle for the future of the Middle East. … But the next great battle – not, we hope a military one – will be for Iran," wrote the Weekly Standard's neoconservative editor, William Kristol, in early May 2003." (Jim Lobe ‘Iran Showdown Tests Power of Israel Lobby’ http://www.antiwar.com/lobe/?articleid=8843 April 12, 2006).

Reuel Gerecht, Michael Ledeen, Richard Perle.
"Indeed, immediately after the invasion of Iraq, the neocons, led by ex-CIA spook Reuel Gerecht, Iran-Contra alumnus Michael Ledeen, and war profiteer Richard Perle, were arguing that Iran should be targeted next for a regime change. Inside the administration, Rumsfeld and Feith were advancing those ideas, suggesting that unlike Iraq, the transformation of Iran could take place peacefully through diplomatic pressure." (Leon Hadar ‘Target: Tehran? http://www.amconmag.com/2004_11_22/article.html November 22, 2004). The jewish neocons believed the invasion of iraq would be a cakewalk and that the american military would soon after march into iran.

John Bolton, Undersecretary for Arms Control and International Security.
Bolton co-operated with his jewish masters to promote a war against iran. "Bolton, who is undersecretary for arms control and international security, is in Israel for meetings on preventing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Bolton said in meetings with Israeli officials that he had no doubt America would attack Iraq, and that it would be necessary thereafter to deal with threats from Syria, Iran and North Korea." (Aluf Benn ‘Sharon says U.S. should also disarm Iran, Libya and Syria’ http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=263941 February 18th 2003).

Donald Rumsfeld.
"Speaking to reporters after talks with Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev, Rumsfeld noted that Iran had been on a list of countries that the United States describes as terrorist states for many years. "One of the gravest concerns the world faces is the nexus between a terrorist state that has weapons of mass destruction and terrorist networks," he said. "So it's understandable that nations, not just in this region but throughout the world, are so deeply concerned about what's taking place in Iran."" (World worried about Iran nuclear aims: Rumsfeld’ http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1521&e=47&u=/afp/20040812/pl_afp/azerbaijan_us_rumsfeld_040812141547 Aug 12th 2003).

2004.
Throughout 2004 a series of propaganda campaigns were launched in favour of an american attack on iran. Despite one commentator’s belief that bush might attack iran prior to the november presidential election to help him get re-elected, the campaign against iran relented in the run up to the elections.

Rachel Neuwirth.
"Iran is moving rapidly to become a nuclear power. The Iranian mullahs have publicly promised to use nuclear weapons to exterminate Israel even if Israel were to achieve peace with the Palestinians. They also claim that Iran, with 70 million people, could absorb and survive any response from Israel while Israel, with only 5.5 million Jews, is vulnerable to devastating losses if only a few of Iran’s missiles got through." (Rachel Neuwirth ‘Israel May Be Compelled to Pre-empt’ http://www.chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=8767 July 31, 2004).

Charles Krauthammer.
"The comments from Bolton and Rice come within weeks of leading neo-conservative pundits and activists in Washington proclaiming that Iran's nuclear program had to be destroyed, even if waging war was the only way to do it. Influential neo-conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer wrote July 23 column in The Washington Post: "The long awaited revolution (in Iran) is not happening. Which (makes) the question of pre-emptive attack all the more urgent. If nothing is done, a fanatical terrorist regime openly dedicated to the destruction of 'the Great Satan' will have both nuclear weapons and missiles to deliver them. All that stands between us and that is either revolution or pre-emptive attack." (Martin Sieff ‘Iran's Very Real War Threat’ http://www.inthenationalinterest.com/Articles/Vol3Issue34/Vol3Issue34Seiff.html c.August 2004).

Alan Dershowitz.
"Intelligence reports about Iran's capacity to produce nuclear weapons aimed at Israel are becoming ominous. Unless diplomatic pressure causes the Iranian mullahs to stop the project, Iran may be ready to deliver nuclear bombs against Israeli civilian targets within a few short years. Some Iranian leaders, such as former president Hashemi Rafsanjani, have made it clear that this is precisely what they intend to do. Killing 5 million Jews would be worth losing 15 million Iranians in a retaliatory Israeli strike, according to Rafsanjani's calculations. Israel, with the help of the United States, should try everything short of military action first: diplomacy, threats, bribery, sabotage, targeted killings of individuals essential to the Iranian nuclear program and other covert actions. But if all else fails, Israel, or the United States, must be allowed under international law to take out the Iranian nuclear threat before it is capable of the genocide for which it is being built." (Alan Dershowitz ‘Amend International Law To Allow Preemptive Strike on Iran’ http://forward.com/main/article.php?ref=dershowitz20040819155 August 20, 2004). According to this paranoid jew, iran should already be in possession of nuclear weapons and on the verge of bombing the jews into oblivion.

An Attack on Iran in August.
"As the Bush administration steps up its rhetoric against Iran's nuclear program, the possibility of Israel following through on veiled threats to hit Iranian sites remains a wildcard." (Joshua Mitnick ‘Would Israel strike first at Iran?’ http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0818/p06s01-wome.html August 18, 2004); "Tension between the United States and Iran, fuelled by a bitter dispute over the aim of the Tehran government's nuclear program, has begun to complicate the massive task of creating a stable Iraq as both countries jockey for influence there." (Paul Koring ‘U.S.-Iran tension adds to Iraq's instability’ http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20040812/IRANIRAQ12/International/Idx August 12, 2004).

An Attack on Iran in September.
"Forget an October Surprise, a much worse one could come in September: full-scale war between the United States and Iran may be far closer than the American public might imagine." (Martin Sieff ‘Iran's Very Real War Threat’ http://www.inthenationalinterest.com/Articles/Vol3Issue34/Vol3Issue34Seiff.html c.Summer 2004).

An Attack on Iran in October.
"According to White House and Washington Beltway insiders, the Bush administration, worried that it could lose the presidential election to Senator John F. Kerry, has initiated plans to launch a military strike on Iran's top Islamic leadership, its nuclear reactor at Bushehr on the Persian Gulf, and key nuclear targets throughout the country, including the main underground research site at Natanz in central Iran and another in Isfahan. Targets of the planned U.S. attack reportedly include mosques in Tehran, Qom, and Isfahan known by the U.S. to headquarter Iran's top mullahs." (Wayne Madsen ‘A Bush pre-election strike on Iran 'imminent' http://www.lebanonwire.com/0410/04102002LW.asp October 20, 2004).

Douglas Feith.
"Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith is the neocon Likudnik who was tasked with cooking up the false "intelligence" that President Bush used to deceive the U.S. public into supporting an illegal invasion of Iraq. With the U.S. military now trapped in the Iraqi quagmire, Feith wants the U.S. to attack Iran." (Paul Craig Roberts ‘Dangerous Delusions About Iran’ http://www.antiwar.com/roberts/?articleid=4160 December 14, 2004).

2005.
Seymour Hersh.
""This is a war against terrorism, and Iraq is just one campaign. The Bush Administration is looking at this as a huge war zone," the former high-level intelligence official told me. "Next, we’re going to have the Iranian campaign. We’ve declared war and the bad guys, wherever they are, are the enemy. This is the last hurrah - we’ve got four years, and want to come out of this saying we won the war on terrorism."" (Seymour M. Hersh ‘The Coming Wars’ http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?050124fa_fact January 17 2005); "On Jan. 17, the New Yorker posted an article by Hersh entitled The Coming Wars (New Yorker, January 24-31, 2005). In it, the well-known investigative journalist claimed that for the Bush administration, "The next strategic target [is] Iran."" (Mark Jensen ‘US Aerial Attack on Iran Planned for June’ http://globalresearch.ca/articles/JEN502A.html February 20th 2005).

The Assassination of Rafiq Hariri.
The jewish campaign for an attack on iran picked up again after the american presidential elections but was thrown off course after the assassination of the former prime minister of lebanon, rafiq hariri, on february 14th 2005. The jews in the bush administration immediately blamed syria for the murder although there was no evidence to support this accusation. For the next few months the jews in america focussed their political propaganda on syria – many believing an attack on syria would be an opportunity for extending the war to iran.

Sunni-Iraqi Freedom Fighters saving Iran.
By 2005 iraqi freedom fighters had fought the american military to a standstill and this forced the campaign for a war against iran onto the back burner. "It was, then, the swiftly growing Iraqi resistance that, by preventing the consolidation of an American Iraq, forced an Iranian campaign off the table and back into the shadows where it has remained to this day." (Michael Schwartz ‘The Ironies of Conquest: The Bush administration's Iranian Nightmare’ http://www.antiwar.com/engelhardt/?articleid=6915 August 10, 2005).

Ritter’s Allegation.
"On Iran, Ritter said that President George W. Bush has received and signed off on orders for an aerial attack on Iran planned for June 2005. Its purported goal is the destruction of Iran's alleged program to develop nuclear weapons, but Ritter said neoconservatives in the administration also expected that the attack would set in motion a chain of events leading to regime change in the oil-rich nation of 70 million -- a possibility Ritter regards with the greatest skepticism." (Mark Jensen ‘US Aerial Attack on Iran Planned for June’ http://globalresearch.ca/articles/JEN502A.html February 20th 2005).

Aipac’s 2005 Annual Conference.
"The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the premier Israel lobby group whose annual convention last year featured a giant, multimedia exhibit on how Iran is "pursuing nuclear weapons and how it can be stopped," has also been pushing hard on Capitol Hill for legislation to promote regime change. Despite White House objections, the group has sought tough sanctions against foreign companies with investments in Iran. "This bill has been pushed almost entirely by AIPAC," noted Trita Parsi, a Middle East expert at Johns Hopkins School for Advanced International Studies (SAIS) here. "I don't see any other major groups behind this legislation that have had any impact on it."" (Jim Lobe ‘Iran Showdown Tests Power of Israel Lobby’ http://www.antiwar.com/lobe/?articleid=8843 April 12, 2006); ""If Iran is on the verge of a nuclear weapon, I think we will have no choice but to take decisive action," said ex-Pentagon advisor Richard Perle as he drew loud cheers from the AIPAC loyalists. New York Senator Hillary Clinton, before she introduced Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to the crowd, said that a nuclear-armed Iran would be "unacceptable". Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic leader in the House also chimed in, saying, "The greatest threat to Israel's right to exist, with the prospect of devastating violence, now comes from Iran."" (Joshua Frank ‘Bombing Iran: The Facts Don't Matter’ http://www.dissidentvoice.org/June05/Frank0602.htm June 2, 2005);

Richard Perle.
"Richard Perle, a key architect of the U.S.-led war against Iraq, said on Saturday the West should not make the mistake of waiting too long to use military force if Iran comes close to getting an atomic weapon. "If you want to try to wait until the very last minute, you'd better be very confident of your intelligence because if you're not, you won't know when the last minute is," Perle told Reuters on the sidelines of an annual security conference in Munich. "And so, ironically, one of the lessons of the inadequate intelligence of Iraq is you'd better be careful how long you choose to wait."" (Richard Perle quoted in Reuters ‘Iraq errors show West must act fast on Iran-Perle’ http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L0494245.htm February 4th 2006

Jewish-owned Politicians: Dick Cheney.
Cheney is a jewish-owned politician, an israeli collaborator, whose power base in the united states congress, organized by tom delay, had been financed by bribes provided by super-zionist jack abramoff. "Other reports are that the vice president, we might say the "spiritual leader" of the US hawks, Cheney, has been covertly aiding the Benjamin Netanyahu candidacy as new head of the right-wing Likud. Netanyahu is also directly tied to the indicted US Republican money-launderer, Jack Abramoff, during the time Netanyahu was Sharon's finance minister." (F William Engdahl ‘A high-risk game of nuclear chicken’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HA31Ak02.html Jan 31, 2006).

In january 2005 cheney gave the jos the go-ahead to attack iran, "One of the concerns people have is that Israel might do it without being asked... Given the fact that Iran has a stated policy that their objective is the destruction of Israel, the Israelis might well decide to act first, and let the rest of the world worry about cleaning up the diplomatic mess afterwards," (Dick Cheney quoted from an MSNBC Interview Jan 2005. Michel Chossudovsky ‘Planned US-Israeli Attack on Iran’ http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=%20CH20050501&articleId=66 May 1, 2005); "In a January 2005 interview with MSNBC’s Imus in the Morning, Vice President Dick Cheney warned that Iran has a "fairly robust nuclear program," charging that the Islamic republic’s prime "objective is the destruction of Israel." He then appeared to be giving a green light to Israel (with an estimated 200 nuclear heads) to take on Iran, whose nuclear ambitions, according to the IAEA itself, are yet to raise serious suspicions. "If, in fact, the Israelis became convinced the Iranians had significant capabilities, the Israelis might well decide to act first, and let the rest of the world worry about cleaning up the diplomatic mess afterwards," Cheney exclaimed, in response to Imus’s thoughtless inquiry: "Why don’t we make Israel do it?"" (Ramzy Baroud ‘Israel’s Nuclear Puzzle Resolved: But To What End?’ http://www.antiwar.com/orig/baroud.php?articleid=6927 August 13, 2005).

Even more ominously, although a joint american/jos attack on iran has been publicly discussed for many years, in july 2005, cheney was the first to float the idea that the united states might have to resort to the use of nuclear weapons, "Philip Giraldi's report in the American Conservative last July that Vice President Cheney has asked the U.S. Strategic Command (STRATCOM) to draw up concrete, short term contingency plans for an attack on Iran, to involve "a large-scale air assault employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons." This would occur in the aftermath of a terror attack on the U.S. which, whatever its origins, would be politically used to justify an attack on Iran, just as the al-Qaeda attack was used to justify the attack on Iraq. Cheney has also declared matter-of-factly that if the U.S. doesn't attack Iran, Israel might do so." (Gary Leupp ‘Goss Builds the Case for Turkey-Based Attacks: Targeting Iran and Syria’ http://www.counterpunch.org/leupp12302005.html December 30, 2005).

The Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations.
"Predictably the biggest Jewish organization in the US, the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations immediately echoed the Israeli state line. Malcolm Hoenlan, President of the Conference, lambasted Washington for a "failure of leadership on Iran" and "contracting the issue to Europe" (Forward, December 9, 2005). He went on to attack the Bush Administration for not following Israel's demands by delaying referral of Iran to the UN Security Council for sanction." (James Petras ‘Israel's War Deadline: Iran in the Crosshairs’ http://www.counterpunch.org/petras12242005.html December 24/25, 2005).

Forward.
"The Jewish weekly newspaper, Forward, has reported a number of Israeli attacks on the Bush Administration for not acting more aggressively on behalf of Israel's policy. According to the Forward, "Jerusalem is increasingly concerned that the Bush Administration is not doing enough to block Teheran from acquiring nuclear weapons" (December 9, 2005)." (James Petras ‘Israel's War Deadline: Iran in the Crosshairs’ http://www.counterpunch.org/petras12242005.html December 24/25, 2005).

AIPAC.
"AIPAC is credited for pushing Congress and the administration towards a number of legislative initiatives hostile to Iran and for placing Tehran's nuclear programme at the top of the international agenda." (Emad Mekay ‘Groundhog day in Washington’ http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2006/778/re6.htm January 19 – 25th 2006). "The role of AIPAC, the Conference and other pro-Israeli organizations as transmission belts for Israel's war plans was evident in their November 28, 2005 condemnation of the Bush Administration agreement to give Russia a chance to negotiate a plan under which Iran would be allowed to enrich uranium for non-military purposes under international supervision. AIPAC's rejection of negotiations and demands for an immediate confrontation were based on the specious argument that it would "facilitate Iran's quest for nuclear weapons" - an argument which flies in the face of all known intelligence data (including Israel's) which says Iran is at least 3 to 10 years away from even approaching nuclear weaponry. AIPAC's unconditional and uncritical transmission of Israeli demands and criticism is usually clothed in the rhetoric of US interests or security in order to manipulate US policy. AIPAC chastised the Bush regime for endangering US security. By relying on negotiations, AIPAC accused the Bush Administration of "giving Iran yet another chance to manipulate (sic) the international community" and "pose a severe danger to the United States" (Forward, Dec. 9, 2005)." (James Petras ‘Israel's War Deadline: Iran in the Crosshairs’ http://www.counterpunch.org/petras12242005.html December 24/25, 2005).

2006.
This year’s campaign against iran seems more prolonged, concerted, and ominous than its predecessors partly because it started very early on in the year and partly because the jews had to push the americans and the europeans through various international diplomatic channels if they were to clear the way for the use of the military option.

Leon Hadar.
Hadar is supposedly anti-war and yet here he provides a justification for a military attack on iran – albeit not a full scale invasion, "Doing nothing about Iran would not only demolish what remains of the U.S.-led nuclear arms-control regime, it would also turn the balance of power in Iraq and the Persian Gulf against the United States and create incentives for the Saudis and others to make deals with Tehran. Short of trying to open direct diplomatic channels with Iran (very unlikely), the United States will probably try to increase the diplomatic and military pressure on Iran in the coming months, demonstrating that the Pax Americana project in the Middle East is becoming more expensive. That the central banks of China and other Asian economies are paying for it is probably the most intriguing element in this evolving story." (Leon Hadar ‘US Headed for Confrontation With Iran - But probably not all-out war’ http://www.antiwar.com/orig/hadar.php?articleid=8339 January 4, 2006).

Daniel Pipes.
Pipes is director of the middle east forum. He helped to set up campus watch to encourage jews living in america to spy on american academics. In the 1970s, his father was the author of an administration paper ‘Plan B’ which fabricated evidence that the soviet union posed an overwhelming military threat to the united states when no such threat existed.

"The most dangerous leaders in modern history are those (like Hitler) equipped with a totalitarian ideology and a mystical belief in their own mission. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad fulfills both these criteria, as revealed by his U.N. comments. That combined with his expected nuclear arsenal make him an adversary who must be stopped, and urgently." (Daniel Pipes ‘Iran's Messianic Menace’ http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=20835 January 10, 2006). This loony paranoid jew believes that osama bin laden was hitler, yasser arafat was hitler, and now mahmoud ahmadinejad is hitler. It would be safer to say that pipes sees hitler everywhere under every non-jewish bed.

Haim Saban and Martin Indyk.
"Kenneth M Pollack, director of research at the Saban Centre on Middle East Policy told a Congressional hearing in September that the US should study the possibility of waging a targeted air campaign aimed at Iran's nuclear facilities as a last resort. The Saban Centre is funded by a grant from Haim Saban, an Egyptian-born Israeli American billionaire who made his money in the entertainment business. Martin Indyk, a staunchly pro-Israel former US diplomat who once served as US ambassador to Israel, directs it." (Emad Mekay ‘Groundhog day in Washington’ http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2006/778/re6.htm January 19 – 25th 2006).

William Kristol.
"More indicative of all is how William Kristol, editor of the neo-conservative publication The Weekly Standard, entitled in his column: "And now Iran."" (Emad Mekay ‘Groundhog day in Washington’ http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2006/778/re6.htm January 19 – 25th 2006); "Comparing Iran's alleged push to gain a nuclear weapon to Adolf Hitler's 1936 march on the Rhineland, Weekly Standard editor William Kristol called for undertaking "serious preparation for possible military action – including real and urgent operational planning for bombing strikes and for the consequences of such strikes."" (Jim Lobe ‘Neocons Turn Up Heat for Iran Attack’ http://www.antiwar.com/lobe/?articleid=8852 April 14, 2006).

Kenneth R. Timmerman and Carl Limbacher.
"World renowned investigative reporter and terror expert Kenneth R. Timmerman, author of the bestselling book "Countdown to Crisis: the Coming Nuclear Showdown with Iran," and Carl Limbacher, reporter for NewMax.com, reveal that the US and Israel will destroy Iran's nuclear facilities in less than 10 weeks from now." (‘Military Attack against Iran Now Imminent’ On A7radio January 20th 2006).

American Jewish Committee.
.. "the most powerful Israeli lobby in Washington, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. In an unprecedented action in November, the group publicly criticized the Bush administration for failing to act more aggressively against Iran. The influential American Jewish Committee also announced its own international campaign to impose a global and diplomatic and economic embargo against Iran until it halts its nuclear program." (Jim Lobe ‘The Iranian neo-cons love to hate’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HA26Ak04.html Jan 26, 2006).

Reuel Marc Gerecht.
Gerect works for the american enterprise institute, one of the most important jewish think tanks in america, "Eventually, assuming the State Department's European strategy falls apart because the Europeans will not play, we will have to make up our minds whether nukes in the hands of Khamenei, Rafsanjani, and Ahmadinejad are "intolerable" or not. If so, then we will have to prepare to bomb." (Reuel Marc Gerecht ‘How to Head Off the Imam Bomb’ The Weekly Standard http://www.aei.org/publications/filter.all,pubID.23721/pub_detail.asp January 23, 2006).

Gerect goes on to refer glowingly to america’s destruction of iranian democracy in 1953, "Ideally, what the United States needs is to replicate the economy-crushing sanctions the West threw at Iranian prime minister Mohammed Mossadegh after he nationalized British petroleum in Iran in 1951. There are many reasons why Mossadegh fell to a very lamely executed and inexpensive coup in 1953, but among the most important was the effective oil embargo, which helped turn a popular prime minister into an unpopular one in less than a year." (Reuel Marc Gerecht ‘How to Head Off the Imam Bomb’ The Weekly Standard http://www.aei.org/publications/filter.all,pubID.23721/pub_detail.asp January 23, 2006).

Jeff Jacoby.
"It is not yet unreasonable to hope that Tehran can be forced to back down by a combination of economic sanctions, political isolation, and diplomatic heat. But if a nonmilitary strategy is to have any chance of success, it must be very clear that military action is Plan B - and that United States is quite prepared to wield that ''big stick" if Iran will not abandon its atomic ambitions. Under no circumstances can such enemies be permitted to acquire nuclear weapons - or to doubt that we will do what we must to make sure that they don't." (Jeff Jacoby ‘Don't go wobbly on Iran’ http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2006/01/25/dont_go_wobbly_on_iran/ January 25, 2006). Yet another jew manipulating the american people into supporting a war against iran which the jos cannot fight. But then why should the jos attack iran when the jewish traitors living in america can get america to do their dirty business for them even if it involves a colossal financial cost and the loss of a large number of american lives?

Mortimer B. Zuckerman.
Zuckerman owns the new york post and the atlantic monthly and was formerly the chair of the conference of presidents of the major jewish american organizations. "Military action, such as bombing the Iranian plants with cruise missiles and strike aircraft, would be justified in the circumstances. But that is hugely difficult politically, and covert action is very difficult operationally. Still, the risks may have to be taken because the alternative is so awful. There may now be a window of opportunity for effective preventive action, but this window is more likely to be measured in months than years." (Mortimer B. Zuckerman ‘Moscow's Mad Gamble’ http://www.usnews.com/usnews/opinion/articles/060130/30edit.htm January 30th 2006). This paranoid jew who’s trying to stir up world war three believes, "Within a very few years, in all likelihood, Iran will be able to launch nuclear missiles." This view is not merely untrue – it is a total fabrication. But, this is the propaganda being pumped out by the jewish ruling classes in america, britain, and palestine.

worldnetdaily.com.
"If the Iranians persist in creating a market mechanism to settle world oil transactions in the euro, the United States will attack just to preserve the oil market for the dollar. If Iran does open an oil bourse next month, we should expect the warplanes will soon thereafter begin to fly." (Jerome R. Corsi ‘Will Iran's 'petroeuro' threat lead to war?’ http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48652 February 3, 2006). Corsi is the author of some highly illuminating works such as co-authoring with John O'Neill the No. 1 New York Times best-seller, "Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry." and the sizzler, "Atomic Iran: How the Terrorist Regime Bought the Bomb and American Politicians." Ho, ho, ho. But large numbers of americans probably believe him!

Kenneth R. Timmerman.
"The massive stroke that cut down Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon late on Wednesday night (Jan. 4) not only throws Israeli politics into turmoil. It also marks the likely starting point of the coming nuclear showdown that will pit the Jewish state and the free world against the Islamic Republic of Iran." (Kenneth R. Timmerman ‘Within Range’ http://www.kentimmerman.com/2006_01_05frontpage-iran.htm January 5, 2006). So, who is ken timmerman? "Notably, prominent Washington neo-conservative, Kenneth Timmerman, told Israeli radio in mid-January that he expected an Israeli preemptive strike on Iran "within the next 60 days", i.e. just after Israeli elections or just before. Timmerman is close to Richard Perle, the indicted Cheney chief of staff, Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Douglas Feith and Michael Ledeen." (F William Engdahl ‘A high-risk game of nuclear chicken’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HA31Ak02.html Jan 31, 2006); "That is Kenneth Timmerman - neocon extraordinaire, member of the fear-mongering imperial project that calls itself the Committee on the Present Danger, and contributor to the neocon rag National Review and its ultra-right counterpart FrontPagemag.com." (Ron Jacobs ‘Iranian ‘"Democracy" and the "Intelligence" Summit’ http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=JAC20060204&articleId=1889 February 4, 2006).

Robert Joseph.
"Robert Joseph, undersecretary of state for arms control, said Tehran had to be dissuaded by "whatever means are necessary" from acquiring nuclear arms, but added the West was "giving every chance for diplomacy to work." Speaking two days after the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) voted to report Tehran to the UN Security Council for its nuclear work, Joseph gave a worrying assessment of Iran's nuclear progress. "I would say that Iran does have the capability to develop nuclear weapons and the delivery means for those weapons," Joseph told a news conference at the Foreign Press Center here. He went a step further than President George W. Bush, who said in a statement hailing the IAEA action Saturday that Iran was "continuing to develop the capability to build nuclear weapons." He sidestepped questions on the use of force yet said, "No options are off the table. We cannot tolerate a nuclear-armed Iran, but we are giving every chance for diplomacy to work. What is necessary to stop Iran is a firm indication that the international community ... will take whatever measures are necessary to convince Iran that it is in its interest to forego a nuclear weapons capability."" (Iran has the Ability to develop a Nuclear Weapon: US Official’ http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060206/pl_afp/irannuclearpoliticsus February 6th 2006). Joseph was one of the jewish liars, an israeli traitor to america, who thought nothing about deceiving bush and the american public into believing that saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction. "Not a high-profile hardliner like Bolton or Feith, Joseph successfully avoided the public limelight-that is until the scandal of the 16 words in Bush's 2003 State of the Union Address about Iraq's alleged nuclear weapons development program. According to president, "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." The State of the Union Address, which laid out the administration's case for a preemptive invasion of Iraq, used unconfirmed intelligence reports about Iraq's WMD programs. Press reports and congressional testimony by CIA officials later revealed that the CIA had vigorously protested the inclusion of any assertion that Iraq was developing nuclear weapons since their intelligence would not support such a conclusion. Alan Foley, the CIA's top expert on weapons of mass destruction, told Congress that Robert Joseph repeatedly pressed the CIA to back the inclusion in Bush's speech of a statement about Iraq's attempts to buy uranium from Niger. Following these revelations about the inclusion of erroneous and disputed intelligence estimates in this major speech that readied the U.S. public for war against Iraq, Joseph said he did not recall Foley's raising concerns about the credibility of the information to be included in the speech." (Tom Barry ‘Meet John Bolton's Replacement http://www.counterpunch.org/barry06162005.html June 15, 2005). Joseph’s reward for lying and pushing america into a war against iraq which has incurred vast economic costs and the loss of thousands of american lives, was promotion, "The top U.S. government official in charge of arms control advocates the offensive use of nuclear weapons and has deep roots in the neoconservative political camp . Moving into John Bolton's old job, Robert G. Joseph is the right-wing's advance man for counterproliferation as the conceptual core of a new U.S. military policy. Within the administration, he leads a band of counterproliferationists who - working closely with such militarist policy institutes as the National Institute for Public Policy and the Center for Security Policy - have placed preemptive attacks and weapons of mass destruction at the center of U.S. national security strategy. Joseph replaced John Bolton at the State Department as the new undersecretary of state for arms control and international security affairs. Like the controversial Bolton, Joseph has established a reputation for breaking or undermining arms control treaties, rather than supporting or strengthening international arms control. Joseph, too, has long believed that U.S. military strategy should be more offensive than defensive." (Tom Barry ‘Meet John Bolton's Replacement http://www.counterpunch.org/barry06162005.html June 15, 2005). Joseph is one of the many israelis who have been drafted into the bush administration to promote the interests of the jews-only state in palestine. "Although not self-identified as a neoconservative, Joseph moves in the same circles as other military strategists such as the CSP's Frank Gaffney, Richard Perle, and Paul Wolfowitz. In a Washington Post article (May 2, 2002), "Who's Pulling the Foreign Policy Strings," Dana Milbank wrote: "The vice president sometimes stays neutral but his sympathies undoubtedly are with the Perle crowd. Cheney deputies Lewis "Scooter" Libby and Eric Edelman relay neoconservative views to Rice at the National Security Council. At the NSC, they have a sympathetic audience in Elliott Abrams, Robert Joseph, Wayne Downing, and Zalmay Khalilzad."" (Tom Barry ‘Meet John Bolton's Replacement http://www.counterpunch.org/barry06162005.html June 15, 2005).

Wall Street Journal.
"Today, the editorial page is a fount of neoconservative war propaganda. All intelligence has vanished. Consider the "Review & Outlook" of Feb. 3, which declares Iran to be "an intolerable threat." Iran is portrayed as a threat because the country's new president has used threatening rhetoric against Israel. But, of course, Bush and Israel are constantly using threatening rhetoric against Iran. To avoid being regarded as a wimp by his countrymen and by the Muslim world, the new Iranian president has to answer back. It doesn't occur to the editorialists that Iranians might see the nuclear weapons of Israel and the U.S. as intolerable threats." (Paul Craig Roberts ‘How Conservatives Went Crazy’ http://www.antiwar.com/roberts/?articleid=8513 February 8, 2006); .. "the neoconservative editorial writers at the Wall Street Journal, who said the administration's "alleged war fever is hard to credit, given that for three years the Bush Administration has deferred to Europe in pursuing a diplomatic track on Iran." The Journal said the government must give priority to developing "bunker buster" nuclear bombs." (Jim Lobe ‘Neocons Turn Up Heat for Iran Attack’ http://www.antiwar.com/lobe/?articleid=8852 April 14, 2006).

Max Boot and Nicholas Goldberg.
"Max Boot just wrote in the Los Angeles Times, "In sum, a terrorist-sponsoring state led by an apocalyptic lunatic will soon have the ability to incinerate Tel Aviv or New York," which "leaves only one serious option – air strikes by Israel or the U.S." Niall Ferguson wrote a few days earlier in the same newspaper that a U.S. preemptive strike against Iran today would prevent an Iranian nuclear strike on Israel in 2007, ignoring among other things the reality that it is physically impossible for Iran to produce a nuclear weapon in a year. Nicholas Goldberg, who edits the Times' opinion page, studiously avoids publishing any alternative viewpoints. A similar approach is taken by the rest of the mainstream media in the U.S. and Western Europe. Is it surprising that a few days after these two opinion pieces were published the Los Angeles Times found that 57 percent of the U.S. public backs a military strike on Iran?" (Jorge Hirsch ‘America and Iran: At the Brink of the Abyss’ http://www.antiwar.com/orig/hirsch.php?articleid=8577 February 20, 2006).

Joe Lieberman.
"Nevertheless, Dick Cheney himself last year ordered a study of a plan for an attack on Iran -and leading politicians are beating the war drums, including Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.)." (Lee Sustar ‘Target: Iran’ http://www.counterpunch.org/sustar02252006.html February 25 / 26, 2006).

The Jewish owned American Media in General.
"The media has assumed its traditional role of fanning the flames for war by providing ample space for the spurious allegations of administration officials, right-wing pundits, and disgruntled Iranian exiles, while carefully omitting the relevant facts in Iran's defense. As always, the New York Times has spearheaded the propaganda war with an article by Richard Bernstein and Steven Weisman which lays out the sketchy case against Iran. In the first paragraph the Bernstein-Weisman combo suggest that Iran has restarted "research that could give it technology to create nuclear weapons."" (Mike Whitney ‘The Bombs of March. Countdown to War with Iran? http://www.counterpunch.org/whitney01132006.html January 13, 2006); "Led by a familiar clutch of neoconservative hawks, major right-wing publications are calling on the administration of President George W. Bush to urgently plan for military strikes – and possibly a wider war – against Iran in the wake of its announcement this week that it has successfully enriched uranium to a purity necessary to fuel nuclear reactors. In a veritable blitz of editorials and opinion pieces published Wednesday and Thursday, the Wall Street Journal, the Weekly Standard, and National Review warned that Tehran had passed a significant benchmark in what they declared was its quest for nuclear weapons and that the administration must now plan in earnest to destroy Iran's known nuclear facilities, as well as possible military targets, to prevent it from retaliating." (Jim Lobe ‘Neocons Turn Up Heat for Iran Attack’ http://www.antiwar.com/lobe/?articleid=8852 April 14, 2006).

The same commentators who manipulated america into the invasion of iraq are now manipulating america into a war against iran. "Besides convincing the public that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction, a critical task of the neo-cons was to convince the American public that there was a link between Al Queda and Saddam. Their colleagues among the nation's major syndicated columnists such as Safire, Will, Tom Friedman, Charles Krauthammer, Jeff Jacoby, and Paul Greenberg were all too willing accomplices. By the time, the U.S. launched its invasion, more than half of the public was convinced that Saddam had been behind the attacks." (Jeffrey Blankfort ‘A War for Israel’ http://www.leftcurve.org/LC28WebPages/WarForIsrael.html c.2003).

John Bolton, US ambassador to the UN.
"Significantly, the most hawkish of hawks had to be the US ambassador to the UN, John Bolton. In a speech, not by accident, at the annual convention of the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee, the powerful pro-Israel US lobby, he said Iran's nuclear program could be "taken out"." (Pepe Escobar ‘The old lovers' nuclear tango’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HC08Ak02.html Mar 8, 2006).

National Review.
"National Review, another prominent right-wing weekly, echoed the call. "Any air campaign should … be coupled with aggressive and persistent efforts to topple the regime from within," advised its lead editorial, entitled "Iran, Now," and almost certainly written by Michael Ledeen of the neoconservative American Enterprise Institute (AEI). "Accordingly, it should hit not just the nuclear facilities, but also the symbols of state oppression: the intelligence ministry, the headquarters of the Revolutionary Guard, the guard towers of the notorious Evin Prison."" (Jim Lobe ‘Neocons Turn Up Heat for Iran Attack’ http://www.antiwar.com/lobe/?articleid=8852 April 14, 2006).

The Jewish-owned Presidency: Bush Professes to fight Proxy Zionist War.
Bush has made it clear that he is willing to wage war against iran for the sake of the jos – this incidentally would be america’s third proxy zionist war. "What President George W. Bush, Fox News, and the Washington Times were saying about Iraq three years ago they are now saying about Iran. After Saturday's vote by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to report Iran's suspicious nuclear activities to the UN Security Council, the president wasted no time in warning, "The world will not permit the Iranian regime to gain nuclear weapons." More recently, in the case of Iran, President Bush has been unabashed in naming Israel as the most probable target of any Iranian nuclear weapons. He has also created a rhetorical lash-up of the U.S. and Israel, referring three times in the past two weeks to Israel as an "ally" of the U.S., as if to condition Americans to the notion that the U.S. is required to join Israel in any confrontation with Iran. For example, on Feb. 1 the president told the press, "Israel is a solid ally of the United States; we will rise to Israel's defense if need be." Asked if he meant the U.S. would rise to Israel's defense militarily, Bush replied with a startlingly open-ended commitment, "You bet, we'll defend Israel."" (Ray McGovern Juggernaut Gathering Momentum: Next Stop, Iran’ http://www.antiwar.com/mcgovern/?articleid=8510 February 8, 2006). F william engdahl raises the pertinent issue as regards america’s national interests as opposed to the interests of the jos, "It is useful to keep in mind that even were Iran to possess nuclear missiles, the strike range would not reach the territory of the US. Israel would be the closest potential target. A US preemptive nuclear strike to defend Israel would raise the issue of what the military agreements between Tel Aviv and Washington actually encompass, a subject neither the Bush administration nor its predecessors have seen fit to inform the American public about." (F William Engdahl ‘A high-risk game of nuclear chicken’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HA31Ak02.html Jan 31, 2006). Joseph cirincione has concluded, "For months, I have told interviewers that no senior political or military official was seriously considering a military attack on Iran. In the last few weeks, I have changed my view. In part, this shift was triggered by colleagues with close ties to the Pentagon and the executive branch who have convinced me that some senior officials have already made up their minds: They want to hit Iran. But this time, it is the administration’s own statements that have convinced me. What I previously dismissed as posturing, I now believe may be a coordinated campaign to prepare for a military strike on Iran." (Joseph Cirincione ‘Fool Me Twice’ http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=3416 March 27, 2006).

The American Jewish Committee’s Advert in The New York Times for a Proxy Zionist War against Iran.
"A full page advertisement in The New York Times on April 4 on page A-15 sponsored by the American Jewish Committee urged an attack on Iran drawing a map with Iran in the center showing how far it is from various countries in Asia, Europe and African asking: "Can anyone within range of Iran's missiles feel safe?"" (Kevin B. Zeese ‘Attacking Iran: Hersh vs. Bush: Who Would You Believe? http://www.counterpunch.org/zeese04142006.html April 14, 2006); "Similarly, the American Jewish Committee (AJC), whose leadership is considered slightly less hawkish than AIPAC, has taken out full-page ads in influential U.S. newspapers since last week entitled "A Nuclear Iran Threatens All" depicting radiating circles on an Iran-centered map to show where its missiles could strike. "Suppose Iran one day gives nuclear devices to terrorists," the ad reads. "Could anyone anywhere feel safe?"" (Jim Lobe ‘Iran Showdown Tests Power of Israel Lobby’ http://www.antiwar.com/lobe/?articleid=8843 April 12, 2006).

CBS also ran a commercial recommending an attack on iran. Jeff blankfort analyzes the political significance of the commercial. "The president of CBS is Leslie Moonves who happens to be the great nephew of David Ben-Gurion. Is that just a coincidence or would they have this slot on CBS if the president was just some ordinary person with no connection to the Israel Lobby? Do you think it will be announced as a paid political ad or is, perhaps, CBS paying the AJCommittee? Readers might tune in and make inquiries of CBS. In today's NY Times the AJ Committee published the first of a planned series of ads apparently designed to get the US to attack Iran. At the top of the page is a bold face headline that reads: Can anyone within range of Iran's missiles feel safe? Beneath that is a map of that shows everything from West Africa through most of China, east to west, and from the North Pole to Tanzania, north to south, with two concentric circles with Iran in black in the center. Underneath that is another bold faced headline: Suppose Iran one day gives nuclear devices to terrorists. Could anyone anywhere feel safe? Under the AJC Logo are about 80 signatures of the AJC supporters who paid for the ad. What other conclusion can one draw from the ad other than that the AJ Committee, one of the most important and oldest of the Jewish Israel Lobby is pushing for an attack Iran. It is the only sector of US society doing so as it was the only sector that lobbied for the war against Iraq." (Jeff Blankfort ‘American Jewish Committee's David Harris on CBS and Attack Iran ad’ jblankfort@earthlink.net April 4th 2006).

Jinsa.
"The Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA), another hard-line advocacy group, has advocated "regime change" by any means necessary in Iraq, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia and the Palestinian Authority. JINSA's board of advisers has included many Bush administration leaders: Dick Cheney, John Bolton, Richard Perle, James Woolsey and Douglas Feith. JINSA now sees Iran as THE security threat saying in an April 12 JINSA Report entitled "Iran, Iran, Iran and Iran." "Whatever we do in Iraq and whatever Iraqi politicians do; whatever we do to Hamas; however hard we look for Bin Laden or al-Zawahiri; whoever runs our port terminals; whatever the price of gasoline; however we secure our borders; whoever leaked Valerie Plame's name - under the shadow of a nuclear-capable Iran, American and allied options are reduced."" (Kevin B. Zeese ‘Attacking Iran: Hersh vs. Bush: Who Would You Believe? http://www.counterpunch.org/zeese04142006.html April 14, 2006).

The Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish American Organizations.
"Again, in calling for a US confrontation with Iran, while not specifying the nature of that confrontation, one has found in recent months the same unanimity on most of the web sites of the more than 50 organizations that make up the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish American Organizations. Those Jews who are passionately against the war with Iraq, against attacking Iran, and who with equal passion call for justice for the Palestinians can not be found in that grouping and indeed represent a minority among the majority of American Jews who are not represented by the Conference of Presidents." (Jeff Blankfort ‘AIPAC's Complaint by Eric Alterman’ jblankfort@earthlink.net April 15 2006).

The Jews in Palestine stirring up a War against Iran.
2002.
Ariel Sharon, Leader of the Jos.
"Sharon began publicly pushing the United States to confront Iran in November 2002, in a high profile interview in The Times (London). Describing Iran as the "center of world terror," and bent on acquiring nuclear weapons, he declared that the Bush Administration should put the strong arm on Iran "the day after" it conquered Iraq." (John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt ‘The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy’ rwp_06_011_walt.pdf March 2006 p.39).

2003.
Ariel Sharon, Leader of the Jos.
"Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said yesterday that Iran, Libya and Syria should be stripped of weapons of mass destruction after Iraq. "These are irresponsible states, which must be disarmed of weapons mass destruction, and a successful American move in Iraq as a model will make that easier to achieve," Sharon said to a visiting delegation of American congressmen." (Aluf Benn ‘Sharon says U.S. should also disarm Iran, Libya and Syria’ http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=263941 February 18th 2003).

Binyamin Ben Eliezer, Jos Defense Minister.
"As Israeli Defense Minister Binyamin Ben Eliezer remarked one month before the Iraq war: "Iraq is a problem …. But you should understand, if you ask me, today Iran is more dangerous than Iraq." (John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt ‘The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy’ rwp_06_011_walt.pdf March 2006 p.38).

The Jos ambassador in Washington.
"In late April 2003, Ha’aretz reported that the Israeli ambassador in Washington was now calling for regime change in Iran. The overthrow of Saddam, he noted, was "not enough." In his words, America "has to follow through. We still have great threats of that magnitude coming from Syria, coming from Iran."" (John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt ‘The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy’ rwp_06_011_walt.pdf March 2006 p.39).

General Plans.
"Israel is working on a wide range of measures to undermine Iran's nuclear program, with senior leaders hinting that Israel may take preemptive action if that is deemed necessary. Analysts here suggest that action may include a strike similar to Israel's 1981 attack on Iraq's Osirak reactor. The Israeli initiative includes political, military, and intelligence wings of government and dovetails with US efforts to contain Iran within the framework of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)." (Nicole Gaouette ‘Israel: Iran is now danger No. 1’ http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/1128/p06s01-wome.html November 28, 2003).

Shaul Mofaz, Jos Minister of Defense.
"On the same US trip, Mr. Mofaz told a pro-Israeli lobby group that a nuclear Iran was "intolerable." "The implicit message of his statements was that if the Iranian nuclear program is not stopped in the next number of months, Israel will have to take action of its own - perhaps even to attack - to prevent nuclear weapons from falling into Iranian hands," analyst Amir Rappaport wrote in the Ma'ariv newspaper." (Nicole Gaouette ‘Israel: Iran is now danger No. 1’ http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/1128/p06s01-wome.html November 28, 2003); "In November, Israeli media reported that Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz, on a trip to Washington, told US officials that "under no circumstances would Israel be able to abide by nuclear weapons in Iranian possession."" (Nicole Gaouette ‘Israel: Iran is now danger No. 1’ http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/1128/p06s01-wome.html November 28, 2003).

Uzi Arad, director of the Institute of Policy and Strategy.
"Iran has a clandestine [nuclear] program that is very ambitious," says Uzi Arad, director of the Institute of Policy and Strategy in Herzilya. "That country thinks big and fast and ... poses a threat that is very real. Should it acquire nuclear weapons or even come close, it would completely alter the Middle East. It's a very ominous threat." (Nicole Gaouette ‘Israel: Iran is now danger No. 1’ http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/1128/p06s01-wome.html November 28, 2003).

Meir Dagan, director of Mossad.
"Meir Dagan, director of Israel's external intelligence agency, the Mossad, told a parliamentary committee this month that Iran posed an "existential threat" to Israel, according to the Yedioth Ahronoth newspaper. He reportedly assured committee members that Israel could deal with this threat." (Nicole Gaouette ‘Israel: Iran is now danger No. 1’ http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/1128/p06s01-wome.html November 28, 2003).

2004.
Martin Van-Creveld’s View of Ariel Sharon.
"The remarks - reminiscent of the vitriolic propaganda campaign against Iraq prior to the Anglo-American invasion of the Arab country last year - coincided with the publication of an article by a leading Israeli military historian Martin Van-Creveld, suggesting that Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon might very well order an attack on Iranian nuclear plants. Writing in the Paris-based International Herald Tribune on 21 August, Creveld opined an Israeli or American (or a joint Israeli-American) attack on Iranian nuclear plants might be carried out before the US November elections. "It all depends on Ariel Sharon - an old war-horse who back in 1982 led Israel into a disastrous invasion of Lebanon. One can only hope that this time he will think twice," the military historian said." (Khalid Amayreh ‘Israel to US: Now for Iran’ http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/03398F16-8119-4A21-83E4-D93E5F161B55.htm August 29 2004).

Ira Sharkansky.
"In that light, Israel's most workable approach would be to leave it to the Americans, according to Ira Sharkansky, Professor of Political Science at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. "I think the safest thing for Israel is to let the Americans do it," he told Aljazeera.net. And Israel, directly and through its powerful lobby in Washington, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), has been making strenuous efforts to get Washington to "do something" about Iran." (Khalid Amayreh ‘Israel to US: Now for Iran’ http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/03398F16-8119-4A21-83E4-D93E5F161B55.htm August 29 2004).

Yuval Steinitz, chairman of the Jos’s Foreign affairs and Defense committee.
""This is not an Israeli problem. This time it is a world problem," said Yuval Steinitz, chairman of the Israeli parliament's foreign affairs and defense committee. "Iran is seeking to become a world power."" (‘Israel can't go it alone against Iran: politicians, analysts’ http://www.spacewar.com/2004/040719014127.fe7l7p6i.html July 19, 2004).

Caroline Glick.
"On Nov. 20, Caroline Glick, deputy managing editor of the Jerusalem Post, hysterically accused Europe of defending "Iran's ability to attain the wherewithal to destroy the Jewish state." Glick "exposes" France's efforts to prevent the outbreak of wider war in the Middle East as a trick: "France wishes only to box in the U.S. to the point that the Americans will not be able to continue to fight the war against terrorism." The neoconservative Heritage Foundation promptly broadcast Glick's hysterical rants into the Republican noise machine, reviving talk radio calls for nuking France, "America's oldest enemy."" (Paul Craig Roberts ‘Won't Get Fooled Again?’ http://www.antiwar.com/roberts/?articleid=4028 November 22, 2004).

2005.
Arieh Eldad and Yoseph Lapid.
"Last week three members of the Israeli Knesset issued a terse warning that an attack on Iran may be imminent. Arieh Eldad, a member of the right-wing National Union Party said ominously, "Iran will not be deterred by anything but force." Yoseph Lapid, head of the Shinui Party echoed Eldad's sentiments saying, "We feel we are obliged to warn our friends that Israel should not be pushed into a situation where we see no other solution but to act unilaterally." The appearance of three Israeli politicians dispatched to Washington to reiterate the same message can only mean trouble." (Mike Whitney ‘Edging Towards Disaster with Iran’ http://www.opednews.com October 9th 2005).

Silvan Shalom, Jos Foreign Minister.
"The Israeli government is, not surprisingly, skeptical of the European approach. Silvan Shalom, the Foreign Minister, said in an interview last week in Jerusalem, with another New Yorker journalist, "I don’t like what’s happening. We were encouraged at first when the Europeans got involved. For a long time, they thought it was just Israel’s problem. But then they saw that the [Iranian] missiles themselves were longer range and could reach all of Europe, and they became very concerned. Their attitude has been to use the carrot and the stick - but all we see so far is the carrot." He added, "If they can’t comply, Israel cannot live with Iran having a nuclear bomb."" (Seymour Hersh ‘The Coming Wars’ http://globalresearch.ca/articles/HER501A.html January 24th 2005); "Iran may be only six months away from acquiring the capability to produce nuclear weapons, Israeli Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom has claimed. The assessment, which he said was based on Israeli intelligence, differs from US intelligence assessments that Iran could not begin producing nuclear weapons for another decade. "Our experts say they are very close to this (production) stage," Mr Shalom said. "They may need only another six months."" (Abraham Rabinovich ‘Tehran six months off nuclear arms ability: Israel’ http://theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,16668603%255E2703,00.html September 21, 2005). Well, what a surprise – yet another lying paranoid jew.

Ahron Zoevi Farkash, Jos Military Intelligence Chief.
"In early December, Ahron Zoevi Farkash, the Israeli military intelligence chief told the Israeli parliament (Knesset) that "if by the end of March, the international community is unable to refer the Iranian issue to the United Nations Security Council, then we can say that the international effort has run its course."" (James Petras ‘Israel's War Deadline: Iran in the Crosshairs’ http://www.counterpunch.org/petras12242005.html December 24/25, 2005).

Daniel Halutz, Jos Military Chief of Staff.
"On Dec. 5, Israel's military chief of staff, Lt. Gen. Dan Halutz, told foreign journalists in Tel Aviv that he believed diplomacy had reached a dead end. "The fact that the Iranians are successful time after time in getting away from international pressure ... encourages them to continue their nuclear project," Gen. Halutz said. "I believe that the political means that are used by the Europeans and the U.S. to convince the Iranians to stop the project will not succeed." When asked by one reporter how far Israel was ready to go to stop Iran's nuclear projects, Halutz quipped, "2000 kilometers." That's the equivalent of 1,250 miles, the distance by air between Israel and Iran's main nuclear and missile sites." (Kenneth R. Timmerman ‘Within Range’ http://www.kentimmerman.com/2006_01_05frontpage-iran.htm January 5, 2006). See also, "When the Israeli Military Chief of Staff, Daniel Halutz, was asked how far Israel was ready to go to stop Iran's nuclear energy program, he said "Two thousand kilometers" - the distance of an air assault." (James Petras ‘Israel's War Deadline: Iran in the Crosshairs’ http://www.counterpunch.org/petras12242005.html December 24/25, 2005).

Aharon Zeevi Farkash, Jos Military Intelligence Chief.
"Aharon Zeevi Farkash, the Israeli military intelligence chief, stepped up the pressure on Iran this month when he warned Israel’s parliament, the Knesset, that "if by the end of March the international community is unable to refer the Iranian issue to the United Nations security council, then we can say the international effort has run its course." (Uzi Mahnaimi and Sarah Baxter ‘Israel readies forces for strike on nuclear Iran’ http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-1920074_1,00.html December 11, 2005).

Benjamin Netanyahu, leader of the Likud Party.
.. "the most militaristic of Israel's major politicians - Benjamin Netanyahu - who demanded that Prime Minster Sharon take forceful action against Iran. Otherwise, Netanyahu said in December, "when I form the new Israeli government, we'll do what we did in the past against Saddam's reactor, which gave us 20 years of tranquillity." Netanyahu has repeatedly emphasized that he wants to launch a military strike on Iran. "This is the Israeli government's primary obligation," he said. "If it is not done by the current government, I plan to lead the next government to stop the Iranians."" (Norman Solomon ‘Israel’s Future Leader?’ http://www.alternet.org/columnists/story/30491/ January 6, 2006). See also, "Benjamin Netanyahu, leader of the Likud Party and candidate for Prime Minister, stated that if Sharon did not act against Iran, "then when I form the new Israeli government (after the March 2006 elections) we'll do what we did in the past against Saddam's reactor." In June 1981 Israel bombed the Osirak nuclear reactor in Iraq." (James Petras ‘Israel's War Deadline: Iran in the Crosshairs’ http://www.counterpunch.org/petras12242005.html December 24/25, 2005).

It has been stated about netanyahu, "U.S. intelligence sources report that the one Israeli who is considered an extreme threat to U.S. national security is former Prime Minister and current Prime Minister hopeful Binyamin Netanyahu. Not only has Netanyahu visited convicted Israeli spy Jonathan Pollard in his North Carolina prison cell and advocated strenuously for his release but he was once overheard by an ex-CIA agent as saying to a group of his supporters, "Once we squeeze all we can out of the United States, it can dry up and blow away." Considering the damage the neo-cons and their Israeli facilitators are causing for U.S. national security, Netanyahu may soon have his wish." (Wayne Madsen ‘The Neo-Cons’ Unfettered Access to America’s Secrets’ http://www.waynemadsenreport.com/exclusive1.htm September 2005).

Ariel Sharon, former Leader of the jos.
In the run up to national elections in the jos on march 28th 2006, sharon was forced to respond to netanyahu’s populist calls for an attack on iran, "This all pushed Sharon to rally the country, and stave off this lunge from the right, with a strike against Tehran. "Israel - and not only Israel - cannot accept a nuclear Iran," the Israeli Prime Minister said recently. "We have the ability to deal with this and we're making all the necessary preparations to be ready for such a situation."" (‘Israel ready to strike Iran’ http://www.aljazeera.com/cgi-bin/news_service/middle_east_full_story.asp?service_id=10383 December 22nd 2005). Currently, ariel sharon, a terrorist, mass murderer, war criminal, and the leader of the terrorist jos lies in a coma and will never get to see the fulfilment of his plans for his greatest act of terrorism. A jewish nuclear attack on iran would have been his great swan song – his legacy after a lifetime of killing. It will also be the first global announcement of a new global reality – jewish world domination.

Meir Dagan, Head of Mossad.
"Meir Dagan, the head of Mossad, Israel’s intelligence agency, told the Knesset last December that "Iran is one to two years away, at the latest, from having enriched uranium. From that point, the completion of their nuclear weapon is simply a technical matter."" (Seymour M. Hersh ‘The Iran Plans’ http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060417fa_fact April 10th 2006).

Shaul Mofaz, Jos Minister of Defense.
"On December 9, Israeli Minister of Defense, Shaul Mofaz, affirmed that in view of Teheran's nuclear plans, Tel Aviv should "not count on diplomatic negotiations but prepare other solutions"." (James Petras ‘Israel's War Deadline: Iran in the Crosshairs’ http://www.counterpunch.org/petras12242005.html December 24/25, 2005).

2006.
Shaul Mofaz, Jos Minister of Defense.
A month after the comments quoted above, "Israel's defense minister hinted Saturday that the Jewish state is preparing for military action to stop Iran's nuclear program, but said international diplomacy must be the first course of action. "Israel will not be able to accept an Iranian nuclear capability and it must have the capability to defend itself, with all that that implies, and this we are preparing," Shaul Mofaz said." (Talk of military action in Iran standoff’ http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-01-21-iran-nuclear-standoff_x.htm January 21st 2006); "And Israeli Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz went further, speaking directly to Iran's president: "I address you as someone who leads his country with an ideology of hate, terror, and anti-Semitism. I suggest you look at history and see what happened to others who tried to wipe out the Jewish people. … Israel is not prepared to accept the nuclear arming of Iran, and it must prepare to defend itself, with all that implies."" (Quoted in Patrick J Buchanan ‘Bush's Dilemma: Iran vs. Israel’ http://www.antiwar.com/pat/?articleid=8437 January 25, 2006); "Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz was asked whether Israel was ready to use military action if the Security Council proved unable to act against what Israel and the West believe is a covert Iranian nuclear weapons program. "My answer to this question is that the state of Israel has the right give all the security that is needed to the people in Israel. We have to defend ourselves," Mofaz told Reuters after a meeting with his German counterpart Franz Josef Jung." (Louis Charbonneau ‘Israel will have to Act on Iran if UN Can’t’ http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060308/wl_nm/nuclear_iran_israel_dc March 8th 2006).

Ehud Olmert, Acting Prime Minister of the Jos.
"Meanwhile, Israel also vowed not to let the Iranians develop nuclear weapons. Israeli Acting Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said on Tuesday that the Jewish state could not reconcile itself to the threat of a nuclear Iran. "Under no circumstances, and at no point, can Israel allow anyone with these kinds of malicious designs against us, to have control of weapons of destruction that can threaten our existence," Olmert told a joint news conference with Israeli President Moshe Katsav. "The state of Israel cannot reconcile itself to a situation in which there is a threat against us, just as, in my view, the nations of Europe and the United States cannot reconcile themselves," he said." (World divided over referring Iran to UNSC’ http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2006-01/18/content_4067150.htm January 18th 2006); "In Israel, it was Sharon who repeatedly refused the Israeli generals' requests for air strikes; he is now out of the picture. His replacement, Olmert, is weak. The victory of Hamas in the Palestinian elections gave Olmert's main opponent, Likud's Netanyahu, a big boost. How could Olmert best show the Israeli electorate he is as tough as Netanyahu? Obviously, by hitting Iran before Israel's elections in late March." (William S. Lind ‘The Next Act’ http://www.antiwar.com/lind/?articleid=8486 February 2, 2006).

Popular Jewish Support for the War.
"A strike against Iran would be popular in Israel, where everyone agrees that Iran cannot be allowed to have the kind of nuclear weapons that Israel itself possesses in such bristling abundance." (‘Israel ready to strike Iran’ http://www.aljazeera.com/cgi-bin/news_service/middle_east_full_story.asp?service_id=10383 December 22nd 2005).

Jewish Military Establishment Support for the War.
Virtually the entire jewish military establishment in palestine has now put itself on public record as supporting an attack on iran, "All top Israeli officials have pronounced the end of March, 2006, as the deadline for launching a military assault on Iran." (James Petras ‘Israel's War Deadline: Iran in the Crosshairs’ http://www.counterpunch.org/petras12242005.html December 24/25, 2005).

Jewish Contingency Plans for War.
The jewish lobby in america is trying to manipulate americans into attacking iran even though it is not in america’s interests to do so. If this fails then the jos will blackmail the bush administration into an attack on iran by stating that if america won’t attack then the jos will. If this fails then the jos will attack. America might be bluffing about attacking iran but the jos is not. If iran retaliates against a jos attack then the americans will certainly enter the war. "The administration is also coming under pressure from Israel, which has warned the Bush team that Iran is closer to developing a nuclear bomb than Washington thinks and that a moment of decision is fast approaching. Israel is preparing, as well. The government recently leaked a contingency plan for attacking on its own if the United States does not, a plan involving airstrikes, commando teams, possibly missiles and even explosives-carrying dogs. Israel, which bombed Iraq's Osirak nuclear plant in 1981 to prevent it from being used to develop weapons, has built a replica of Natanz, according to Israeli media, but U.S. strategists do not believe Israel has the capacity to accomplish the mission without nuclear weapons." (Peter Baker, Dafna Linzer and Thomas E. Ricks ‘U.S. Is Studying Military Strike Options on Iran’ http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/08/AR2006040801082_pf.html April 9, 2006).

The Jews in Britain stirring up a War against Iran.
Jack Straw, the Sharon Loving Foreign Secretary.
As a student, jack was a left wing political radical. He then joined the labour party and eventually ended up as foreign secretary. His heart was still beating with vestiges of sympathy for the palestinians when he set off on a tour of the middle east to bring, as he probably saw it, peace to this troubled region. It was at this point that jack ran into a terrorist who was to bring about a dramatic political conversion. Please see, ‘Jack Straw’s Conversion to Extreme Zionism’. Thereafter jack was helpful to his new found terrorist friend in promoting the proxy zionist war against iraq – just as he is now helping to bring about a proxy zionist war in iran. "Britain's Foreign Minister Jack Straw, who played such a critical role in disseminating the lies that preceded the Iraq war, has been equally disingenuous regarding Iran." (Mike Whitney ‘The Bombs of March. Countdown to War with Iran? http://www.counterpunch.org/whitney01132006.html January 13, 2006).

In march this year, jack straw had stated that a war with iran was "inconceivable". At the beginning of april, condoleezza rice flew over to blackburn, lancashire, to meet jack. The spin put on their meeting was that the illegal war against iran was now imminent. "The belief in some areas of Whitehall is that an attack is now all but inevitable. There will be no invasion of Iran but the nuclear sites will be destroyed. This is not something that will happen imminently, maybe this year, maybe next year. Jack Straw is making exactly the same noises that the Government did in March 2003 when it spoke about the likelihood of a war in Iraq." (Sean Rayment ‘Government in secret talks about strike against Iran’ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=ARQDKSMXA34BVQFIQMFCFFWAVCBQYIV0?xml=/news/2006/04/02/wiran02.xml&sSheet=/portal/2006/04/02/ixportaltop.html April 2nd 2006).

A few days later, there were further rumours about war, "Immediately after Condoleezza Rice's visit to the north of England for a series of secret meetings and public appearances with Foreign Minister Jack Straw, the UK top brass held their own secret meeting Monday in London to prepare Britain for what they now describe as the "inevitable" U.S. military strike against Iran." (Michael Carmichael ‘Top UK Brass Plan for US Strike on Iran’ http://www.antiwar.com/orig/carmichael.php?articleid=8802 April 4, 2006).

Carmichael puts his head on the chopping block and suggests a time frame for the war has now been set. "Planetary Movement has been informed that the timing of the U.S. strike will be synchronized with the political cycle in Bush's America. Political intelligence experts based in Washington, D.C., advise that the U.S. strike against Iran will likely occur between Labor Day (Sept. 4) and election day (Nov. 6) – although it could come earlier if the president's popularity continues its precipitous decline. The political spin of the U.S. action is now being designed by Karl Rove and his minions to strengthen the weakening hand of a deeply unpopular presidency and to stave off a drastic defeat for the Republicans in this year's midterm elections by galvanizing the American voters with the bombing campaign that will be ballyhooed as"essential for national security." (Michael Carmichael ‘Top UK Brass Plan for US Strike on Iran’ http://www.antiwar.com/orig/carmichael.php?articleid=8802 April 4, 2006).

After their blackburn meeting, condi and jack flew off to iraq (contrary to rumour, condi slept on the floor whilst jack had condi’s bed) to tell the democratically elected candidate for prime minister that they weren’t going to allow him to be prime minister. Their favourite for the job was adil abdul mahdi who ran execution squads and various torture chambers. "Adil Abdul Mahdi of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI) called Wednesday for his rival Ibrahim Jaafari to step down. As for security, it is Abdul Mahdi's party that is implicated in the scandals at the Ministry of the Interior over death squads and militia infiltration, not Jaafari's Dawa Party." (Juan Cole ‘Jaafari refuses to Resign’ http://www.juancole.com/2006_04_01_juancole_archive.html April 5, 2006). Carmichael suggested they supported his candidacy because they believed he would pose fewer objections to an attack on iran. "In Baghdad, the pair met with President Jalal Talabani and the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad, to arrange the ouster of Jaafari and his replacement by Mahdi. The imminent regime change in Baghdad is merely a first step in their preparations for the U.S. air strike against Iran, which will create massive political pressures on the U.S.-backed government in Iraq." (Michael Carmichael ‘Top UK Brass Plan for US Strike on Iran’ http://www.antiwar.com/orig/carmichael.php?articleid=8802 April 4, 2006). The scenario being painted here is that although straw believes a war against iran is "inconceivable" he’s helping the americans in iraq to prepare the way for a war against iran.

It has been alleged that britain is now formulating contingency plans for a war against iran. "But confirmation that Britain has started contingency planning will undermine the claim last month by Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, that a military attack against Iran was "inconceivable"." (Sean Rayment ‘Government in secret talks about strike against Iran’ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=ARQDKSMXA34BVQFIQMFCFFWAVCBQYIV0?xml=/news/2006/04/02/wiran02.xml&sSheet=/portal/2006/04/02/ixportaltop.html April 2nd 2006).

Simon jenkins endeavours to make sense of what is going on here, "This week's most terrifying remark came from the foreign secretary, Jack Straw. He declared that a nuclear attack on Iran would be "completely nuts" and an assault of any sort "inconceivable". In Straw-speak, "nuts" means he's just heard it is going to happen and "inconceivable" means certain." (Simon Jenkins ‘If ever there was a nation not to drive to extremes, it is Iran’ http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1752058,00.html April 12, 2006). In other words, jack straw, the highest ranking jew in the british cabinet is doing what jews in positions of political power are expected to do - support an initiative in private but oppose it in public so that nobody can accuse jews of stirring up wars in favour of their beloved jos. "In Birmingham (america), she was accompanied by her now well-worn sidekick, the UK Foreign Minister, Jack Straw, a long-standing ally of the neoconservatives in the Israel Lobby. Jack Straw's presence was a signal that the right-wing elements behind the sternest security policies of the state of Israel are standing firmly behind Rice, a stalwart Christian Zionist, in support of her quest for the American presidency. Straw has been a steadfast and stalwart supporter of the global neoconservativism of Bush, Cheney, Rice and Rumsfeld, and he is seen as a steady international operator whose influence can help activate major donors loyal to the Israel Lobby for her presidential campaign. Today, Straw is happily serving as Rice's glove puppet and cat's paw, protecting her image and enforcing her policies on a global scale." (Michael Carmichael ‘Condi Does Britain: The Christocrat’ http://www.counterpunch.org/carmichael04042006.html April 4, 2006).

Tony Blair, Jos Groupie.
Blair has always been a shabbat goy for pragmatic reasons. One of the first points he made when he became leader of the labour party in 1994 was to insist that his party curb its support for palestinian freedom fighters and a palestinian state. Britain is a self proclaimed property-owning democracy but blair cannot find any reason to object to filthy jews stealing palestinian property and dismantling palestinian democratic organizations. Please see, ‘The Pro-Zionist Bigotry of New Labour/Labour ’. After years of pretending that his close alliance with george bush was solely tactical to prevent the lunatic from triggering off a war in the middle east, blair’s association with bush has resulted in his adopting neoconservatism. There are not many politicians around the world who can boast that george bush was their mentor. In the past blair has been compared unfavourably with harold wilson – ‘The only difference between the two is that wilson had a backbone.’ Now blair can be seen in a much more favourable light – after all he’ll be retiring soon and he needs the american lecture circuit to sustain is global lifestyle.

Britain seems ever more likely to support war as blair drifts off ever closer to the neoconservative abyss at the edge of the universe. In mid april, not one but four commentators suggested blair is no longer trying to moderate bush’s extremism but to make it palatable for british politics. "But Iran's casus belli was set out in unambiguous terms by the prime minister in his speech to the Foreign Policy Centre in London on March 21. Blair was updating his 1999 Chicago doctrine of global intervention. Then it was justified by humanitarianism and was optional. Now it is vital for the "battle of values ... a battle about modernity". Those who are not of our values are to be subject to pre-emptive attack. Blair demanded that the west become "active not reactive" against alien values (obviously Islamic) as "we risk chaos threatening our stability". The crusade against them was "utterly determinative of our future here in Britain". He accepted that Britain should seek international agreement before going to war, but should still fight without it. People were crying out for democracy. We must bring it to them since "in their salvation lies our own security". The speech was full of jihadist rhetoric. Blair's desire to wipe non-democratic values off the map is akin to Iran's view of Israel. But we know that when he says war he means war. The speech was the wildest by a British leader in modern times and was the clearest imaginable statement of a casus belli. He mentioned Iran three times. It was gilt-edged, copper-bottomed, swivel-eyed neoconservatism." (Simon Jenkins ‘If ever there was a nation not to drive to extremes, it is Iran’ http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1752058,00.html April 12, 2006); "It's almost certain that as the United States ratchets up the pressure on Iran in the coming months the non-issue of Tehran 's "links" with Al Qaeda will come to the fore. In fact the groundwork is already being laid. Blair, no less, said ominously in a speech last month that although "the conventional view is that Iran is hostile to Al Qaeda: we know from our own history of conflict that, under the pressure of battle, alliances shift and change."" (Tom Porteous ‘The Al Qaeda Myth’ http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2006/04/12/the_al_qaeda_myth.php April 12, 2006); "According to Hersh, our allies 'especially the British' are very worried. "[Prime Minister] Blair's the wild card in this. He and Bush both have this sense, this messianic sense, I believe, about what they've done and what's needed to be done in the Middle East. I think Blair is every bit as committed into this world of 'rapture' as is the president." (Quoted in Gordon Prather ‘Neo-Crazy Plans for Iran’ http://www.antiwar.com/prather/?articleid=8853 April 15, 2006).

Jews in Europe stirring up a War against Iran.
France.
The french opposed the war against iraq and once ridiculed neocon ideas. "You know things are going badly indeed in Iraq when U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad chooses to use an image – Pandora's box – previously wielded only by that critic of the Iraq War, French President Jacques Chirac. Back in September 2004, Chirac compared American actions in Iraq to the famed box of myth, at a moment when Arab League head Amr Moussa was warning that the "gates of Hell" had been opened in that country (a comment assumed at the time to be but another example of overemotional Arab rhetoric)." (Tom Engelhardt ‘Disintegrating Iraqi Sovereignty’ http://www.antiwar.com/engelhardt/?articleid=8681 March 10, 2006).

A french minister even dared to refer to the jos as a "shitty little country". In 2004, ariel sharon retaliated by suggesting that the jews living in france ought to emigrate to palestine. "Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has reiterated his controversial call for French Jews to emigrate to Israel, despite praising France's efforts to crack down on anti-Semitism. Sharon, who is due to visit France next week, sparked a row with Paris last year when he urged French Jews to emigrate to escape "the wildest anti-semitism". France put on hold an invitation for him to visit Paris until he explained the remark. Sharon did so, and the two countries' foreign ministers have exchanged visits, but Sharon again criticized Paris in February for balking at a US-backed proposal to declare Lebanon's Hizb Allah, now represented in the Lebanese parliament, a "terrorist" group. In an interview with French newspaper Le Figaro, Sharon praised France's efforts to tackle anti-Semitism. "Our objective is to attract one million Jews to Israel in the next 15 years, from the whole world, including France," he said. "Our policy is to grow as much as possible the Jewish population in Israel. However, one obviously cannot ignore the fact that there is anti-Semitism in France," he added." (Sharon urges French Jews to emigrate’ http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/3E8A919A-6ED1-4455-AE47-CBD31C1BBC17.htm July 22nd 2005).

In order to show that france was a country safe for jewish supremacists, the french government went on the offensive against the country’s substantial moslem population provoking riots across the country. The french government has adopted such an extreme zionism it has even proposed to criminalize all criticisms of the jos, "A new report on racism in France has sparked controversy by recommending anti-Israel acts and comments be punished by courts as severely as instances of anti-Semitism. The 50-page report, released on Tuesday, four months after being ordered by Interior Minister Dominique de Villepin, warns that racism of all sorts in France "radically threatens the survival of the democratic system". Its author, award-winning writer, doctor and president of a humanitarian aid association, Jean-Christophe Rufin, suggested a raft of measures to combat racism and singles out anti-Semitism as a problem to be combated separately. But one recommendation, that "unfounded" anti-Israel stances be criminalised to the same extent as anti-Jewish acts, has stirred debate in France, where media and political commentary is often critical of Israel's treatment of Palestinians." (AFP ‘Anti-Israel acts like anti-Semitism’ March 23rd 2006).

Poland, Ukraine, and Georgia.
"In fact, the Pentagon neo-cons now have more power than ever considering the current presence of anti-Russian neo-con-influenced governments in Poland, Ukraine, and Georgia. Polish Defense Minister Radek Sikorski, an AEI alum and colleague of Richard Perle and Michael Ledeen, is married to the Washington Post's Anne Applebaum. All four are virulently anti-Putin, especially since Putin began cracking down on the Russian oligarchs who looted the USSR's treasury and resources and made themselves instant billionaires, at the expense of the peoples of the former Soviet Union." Over 70 percent of Russian and Ukrainian oligarchs carry Israeli passports. Ukraine President Viktor Yuschenko's wife, Kateryna Chumachenko Yushchenko, is an American citizen and held positions in the Reagan White House that were directed against "the evil empire." She was, and remains, close to the leading neo-con war hawks of the Reagan years, including Perle, Ledeen, Douglas Feith, Paul Wolfowitz, and Ken Adelman. Georgia's President, Mikhail Saakashvili, in an anti-Putin U.S.-trained lawyer who ousted his predecessor in a U.S.-financed and supported coup backed by oil companies like Halliburton and Exxon Mobil. In addition to the offices of AEI, AIPAC, Hudson, WINEP, and Heritage, in addition to the Pentagon, the embassies of Poland, Ukraine, and Georgia in Washington have become virtual neo-con nesting places, working overtime to formulate all sorts of anti-Russian propaganda aimed at destabilizing Russia and toppling Putin. They are assisted in these efforts by the US Mission to the United Nations, which under arch neo-con John Bolton, has become a favorite off-site meeting place for Washington-based neo-cons right in the middle of Manhattan." (Wayne Madsen ‘Putin and Russian government: Latest targets of the neo-cons and likely forged documents’ http://www.waynemadsenreport.com/ March 25, 2006).

Denmark.
"Rasmussen, who is one of George W. Bush's leading supporters in the war in Iraq (Denmark has sent several hundreds troops), governs with the support of the neo-fascist, xenophobic, and inaptly named Progress Party." (Wayne Madsen ‘Neo-cons use Denmark as their latest tool to bring about the "Clash of Civilizations." http://www.waynemadsenreport.com/ February 5, 2006).

Europe succumbing to Global Jewish Power over Iran.
The neocons have become an increasingly prominent political force in american politics over the last three decades but their influence has only begun to emerge recently in europe. Blair has been a shabbat goy for many years. The prime ministers of denmark, fogh rasmussen, and italy, silvio berlusconi, are on the right and have shown a predilection for bush’s pro-semitic policies. Chirac was hostile to the war against iraq but he’s also fallen in line.

For the last couple of years the british, french, and german governments have supposedly been attempting to moderate america’s jewish-inspired belligerence toward iran over its development of nuclear energy – despite the fact that iran has been acting in accordance with the non-proliferation treaty. The euro-3 let it be known they were opposed to referring the issue of iran’s development of nuclear weapons to the united nations’ security council and were even more opposed to a military attack on iran especially since it would have less legal justification than the previous invasion. However, after the election in germany of angela merkul, a slavish devotee to neocon supremacism, the balance of power in europe shifted significantly towards the neocons.

On january 14th 2006, the iranians decided to rescind their voluntary decision to suspend nuclear research. The euro-3 immediately launched into bellicose attacks on iran as if they were now in agreement with america’s proposed war against iran. "Last August, President George W Bush announced, in regard to Iran's announced plans to resume enrichment regardless of international opinion, that "all options are on the table". That implied in context a nuclear strike on Iranian nuclear sites. That statement led to a sharp acceleration of EU diplomatic efforts, led by Britain, Germany and France, the so-called EU-3, to avoid a war. The three told Washington they were opposed to a military solution. Since then we are told by German magazine Der Spiegel and others the EU view has changed, to appear to come closer to the position of the Bush administration." (F William Engdahl ‘A high-risk game of nuclear chicken’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HA31Ak02.html Jan 31, 2006). Since the pentagon and new york bombings the jos has successfully pressured america into adopting its own foreign policies. It now seems the same is happening in europe.

At the end of january, the french president jacques chirac stated he would respond to acts of terrorism on french soil with the use of a nuclear bomb. "Chirac for his part is the subject of major controversy since he gave a speech on January 19 in which he overturned the traditional French nuclear doctrine of "no first strike" to say that were a terrorist nation to attack France, he would consider even nuclear retaliation as appropriate." (F William Engdahl ‘A high-risk game of nuclear chicken’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HA31Ak02.html Jan 31, 2006). One commentator believes chirac was giving america the go-ahead to use nuclear weapons in a war against iran, "In particular, the widely but wrongly discounted nuclear belligerence of President Jacques Chirac last month implied that France was ready to accept the US use of nuclear weapons in a war against Iran if they saw fit to do so." (Paul Levian ‘Iran and the jaws of a trap’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HB03Ak02.html Feb 3, 2006). In effect he was also doing the same for the jos. However, another commentator disputes this interpretation, "What is clear is that the Chirac government will not stand in the way of a US decision to impose UN sanctions on Iran. Whether that also holds for a US-sanctioned nuclear strike is not clear." (F William Engdahl ‘A high-risk game of nuclear chicken’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HA31Ak02.html Jan 31, 2006).

Iran’s resumption of nuclear research was the catalyst for the neocons’ sudden emergence as the dominant political force in europe, "It is remarkable how quickly an international consensus has emerged for the eventual use of force against Iran. Chirac's indirect reference to the French nuclear capability was a warning to Tehran. Mohamed ElBaradei, whose Nobel Peace Prize last year was awarded to rap the knuckles of the United States, told Newsweek that in the extreme case, force might be required to stop Iran's acquiring a nuclear capability. German Defense Minister Franz Josef Jung told the newspaper Bild am Sonntag that the military option could not be abandoned, although diplomatic efforts should be tried first. Bild, Germany's largest-circulation daily, ran Iranian President Mahmud Ahmedinejad's picture next to Adolf Hitler's, with the headline, "Will Iran plunge the world into the abyss?" The same Europeans who excoriated the United States for invading Iraq with insufficient proof of the presence of weapons of mass destruction already have signed on to a military campaign against Iran, in advance of Iran's gaining WMD." (Spengler ‘Why the West will attack Iran’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HA24Ak01.html Jan 24, 2006).

The following quote indicates europe’s former position on iran, "John Bolton, the undersecretary of state for nonproliferation, is advocating that Iran’s lack of co-operation be referred to the UN Security Council for the imposition of sanctions. But it is unlikely that America’s allies in Europe will support such a move or that a confrontational approach would force the Iranians to change their policy." (Leon Hadar ‘Target: Tehran?’ http://www.amconmag.com/2004_11_22/article.html November 22, 2004). The eu-3 have shifted position considerably since that time. This clearly suggests just how much europe has submitted to global jewish power.

The Jewish Conspiracy to Launch Anti-Moslem Cartoons across Europe.
This is the political context of the publication of the anti-islamic cartoons in 2005-2006. A number of commentators have suggested the origins of the cartoon issue goes back to october 2004 when flemming rose, the cultural editor of denmark's most widely read morning paper jyllands-posten, interviewed daniel pipes, an extreme jewish racist, and the leading proponent in america of the jewish led war against the moslem world, the so-called war of civilizations. Rose wrote a complimentary article about pipes’s views. "Rose traveled to Philadelphia in October 2004 to visit Daniel Pipes, the Neo-Con ideologue who says the only path to Middle East peace will come through a total Israeli military victory. Rose then penned a positive article about Pipes, who compares "militant Islam" with fascism and communism." (Christopher Bollyn ‘European Media Provokes Muslims to Inflame Zionist "Clash of Civilizations’ http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=84976 February 6th 2006). However, james petras has unearthed a more detailed background, "Given Mossad’s long-standing penetration of the Danish intelligence agencies, and their close working relations with the right wing media, it is not surprising that a Ukranian Jew, operating under the name of "Flemming Rose" with close working relations with the Israeli state (and in particular the far right Likud regime) should be the center of the controversy over the cartoons. "Rose’s" ties to the Israeli state antedate his well-know promotional "interview" with Daniel Pipes (2004), the notorious Arab-hating Zionist ideologue. Prior to being placed as a cultural editor of a leading right-wing Danish daily, from 1990 to 1995 "Rose" was a Moscow-based reporter who translated into Danish a self-serving auto-biography by Boris Yeltsin, godchild of the pro-Israeli, post-communist Russian oligarchs, most of whom held dual citizenship and collaborated with the Mossad in laundering illicit billions. Between 1996-1999 "Rose", the journalist, worked the Washington circuit (traveling with Clinton to China) before returning to Moscow 1999-2004 as a reporter for Jyllands-Posten. In 2005 he became its cultural editor, despite few or any knowledge of the field and over the head of other Danish journalists on the staff. In his new position "Rose" found a powerful platform to incite and play on the growing hostility of conservative Danes to immigrants from the Middle East, particularly practicing Moslems. Using the format of an ‘interview’ he published Pipes’ virulent anti-Islamic diatribe, probably to "test the waters" before proceeding to the next stage in the Mossad strategy to polarize a West-East confrontation." (James Petras and Robin Eastman-Abaya ‘The Caricatures in Middle East Politics’ February 19, 2006). Fancy jews being given preferential treatment in the jewish dominated media!

James petras has revealed that four of the twelve cartoons commissioned to ridicule islam and the moslem world, were designed by rose’s own staff, "The oddly named Ukrainian-born editor of the culture page of the Jyllands-Posten commissioned Danish cartoonists to submit a series of cartoons depicting the Prophet Mohammed as they (the Danish cartoonists) might imagine him. However four of the twelve cartoons selected for publication were illustrated by ‘Rose’s’ own staff including the most controversial ‘bomb in the turban’ one. Braving Denmark’s anti-blasphemy laws Mr. Rose published the cartoons on September 30, 2005 and the rest is history…" (James Petras and Robin Eastman-Abaya ‘The Caricatures in Middle East Politics’ February 19, 2006).

The cartoons were published in jyllands-posten on september 30th 2005 but failed to provoke anything more than peaceful protests from moslems in denmark. It seemed as if the cartoons were destined to slip into obscurity. However, after iran resumed nuclear research and europe’s neocon leaders started issuing bellicose statements against iran, europe’s neocon media met to discuss the issue. They decided to jointly publish the cartoons either to help european political leaders prepare the european public for a war against iran or to pressure politicians into a war. At present, there are no details about who initiated the consultations, who was consulted, who came up with the idea for a joint european publication of the cartoons, and which particular people made the decision to publish the cartoons. It is also not known whether any european politicians were consulted about the idea prior to publication. Petras has come up with a possible answer as to the conspirators behind the cartoons, "By early January 2006, Mossad "Katsas" (Hebrew for case officers) activated sayanim (volunteer Jewish collaborators outside of Israel) throughout Western and Eastern European media to simultaneously reproduce the cartoons on Feb. 1 and 2, 1006. One such sayanim operation would have been the decision by France-Soir Senior Editor, Arnaud Levy and Editor in Chief Serge Faubert, to publish the cartoons. The paper’s French Egyptian owner almost immediately fired the paper’s Managing Editor, Jacques Lefranc, who, according to an interview with CNN, had initially opposed their publications, without touching Levy and Faubert." (James Petras and Robin Eastman-Abaya ‘The Caricatures in Middle East Politics’ February 19, 2006).

The simultaneous publication of the anti-moslem cartoons was a remarkable act of jewish political co-ordination intended to manipulate european politicians and peoples. "The dangerous "game" that was started by the Danish editor has now been picked up by at least 7 newspapers across Europe. Supposedly in support of the Danes, papers in France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain and Switzerland simultaneously reprinted the cartoons on February 1. The timing suggests that this response was coordinated by a hidden hand. In Paris, for example, Arnaud Levy, editor-in-chief of the financially-strapped France-Soir, chose to print all 12 of the offensive cartoons. Asked if there had been coordination between European editors about the simultaneous publication of the cartoons, Levy said, "Absolutely not."" (Christopher Bollyn ‘European Media Provokes Muslims to Inflame Zionist "Clash of Civilizations’ http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=84976 February 6th 2006); .. "eleven newspapers in seven countries republished the pictures simultaneously. It was a show of hands: behind various newspapers in various countries, beyond companies and corporations, we were allowed to see the Enemy, the Not-So-Hidden Hand, the player on the international scene across all borders." (Israel Shamir ‘Satanic Pictures’ http://www.israelshamir.net/English/Satanic.htm February 12th 2006); "Jewish media control has infiltrated the Western nerve system. While the Jyllands Posten of Flemming Rose is semi-fascist and neo-con, its sister newspaper, belonging to the same owner, Politiken, is liberal and humanist, and also run by a Jew who became an Israeli citizen. Thus, a left- or a right-wing Dane will be fed by the same spoon." (Israel Shamir ‘Satanic Pictures’ http://www.israelshamir.net/English/Satanic.htm February 12th 2006).

There has been no comparable event like this in recent european history. There have always been those who denounce the idea that jews conspire to manipulate public opinion in europe/america/around the world. Those who support the proposition that the jews who own the media in europe might conspire together for the political advantage of the jos are condemned as anti-semitic. And yet here was the most blatant example of a jewish conspiracy. The co-ordinated nature of the publication seems to be the first manifestation of the neocons’ hegemony over the european media.

Rose defended his commissioning, and publication, of the cartoons as an example of free speech. However, it wasn’t long before his free speech banner was torn down as a sham. A few years earlier the newspaper had refused to publish cartoons mocking jesus and christianity. "Jyllands-Posten, the Danish newspaper that first published the cartoons of the prophet Muhammad that have caused a storm of protest throughout the Islamic world, refused to run drawings lampooning Jesus Christ, it has emerged today. The Danish daily turned down the cartoons of Christ three years ago, on the grounds that they could be offensive to readers and were not funny." (Gwladys Fouché ‘Danish paper rejected Jesus cartoons’ http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/story/0,,1703500,00.html February 6, 2006).

When first questioned about the cartoons, rose stated he would refuse to publish anti-jewish or anti-judaic cartoons. "The International Herald Tribune, which reported on the offensive cartoons on January 1, noted that even the liberalism of Rose had its limits when it came to criticism of Zionist leaders and their crimes. Rose also has clear ties to the Zionist Neo-Cons behind the "war on terror." Rose told the international paper owned by The New York Times that "he would not publish a cartoon of Israel's Ariel Sharon strangling a Palestinian baby, since that could be construed as 'racist.'" (Christopher Bollyn ‘European Media Provokes Muslims to Inflame Zionist "Clash of Civilizations’ http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=84976 February 6th 2006). It is doubtful whether sharon has strangled a baby but he was a terrorist who personally murdered palestinians.

In a bid to rescue his disintegrating public reputation rose agreed to publish some anti-holocaust cartoons that were in the process of being commissioned by an iranian newspaper. However, the editor of jyllands-posten quickly stepped in and stated he would refuse to publish them and put rose on indefinite leave. "The top editor of the Danish newspaper whose caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad sparked rage throughout the Islamic world said Wednesday the daily would not reprint Holocaust cartoons being solicited by an Iranian newspaper. Editor-in-Chief Carsten Juste said his newspaper Jyllands-Posten "in no circumstances will publish Holocaust cartoons from an Iranian newspaper."" (‘Paper won't run Holocaust cartoons’ http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1139395370665&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull Feb. 9, 2006).

If anyone should wonder what sort of person flemming rose is, and what the neocon mentality is like, they ought to appreciate that rose believes any woman who goes to a late night disco wearing a short skirt is asking to be raped, Asked if he would have published the cartoons knowing what the reaction would be, Rose stated: "That is a hypothetical question. I would say that I do not regret having commissioned those cartoons and I think asking me that question is like asking a rape victim if she regrets wearing a short skirt Friday night at the discotheque." (Christopher Bollyn ‘European Media Provokes Muslims to Inflame Zionist "Clash of Civilizations’ http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=84976 February 6th 2006). Millions of young women going to late night discos across europe must wonder what sort of person condones violence against women.

Across europe there are laws which make it a criminal offence to challenge the establishment (jewish) version of events in europe during the rise of totalitarianism. "In much of Europe, there is a legislated "official truth" about the Holocaust. France passed its so-called Gayssot law, making Holocaust denial a crime, in 1990. Germany and Switzerland soon followed suit. Denying or minimising the Holocaust is now also a crime in Austria, Belgium, the Czech Republic, Lithuania, Poland and Slovakia." (Christopher Caldwell ‘Historical truth speaks for itself’ http://news.ft.com/cms/s/e7ee15d8-9ff1-11da-a703-0000779e2340.html February 17 2006). There are also hate laws in many european countries which outlaw racism and religious hatred. And yet even though these jewish commissioned cartoons were clearly designed to provoke hatred of muslims, there has been no prosecution of the editors of the european newspapers which reprinted the cartoons. "The government of Denmark is not about to prosecute Jyllands-Posten, nor will the EU – although they could do so, given the existence of "hate speech" legislation signed into law in both cases." (Justin Raimondo ‘Rotten in Denmark: Flemming Rose and the clash of civilizations’ http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=8512 February 8, 2006). Transparently, europe’s anti-racist and anti-religious hate laws (jews are promoting similar laws in america) have been promoted solely to prosecute those who ridicule jews and judaism. "But some Muslims said that such European laws (against religious hatred) were applied depending on who the culprit was, and that a Muslim was more likely to be sanctioned for taking action against Christian dogmas than the other way round. "Last week a Muslim was condemned to eight months in prison by a court in Rome only because he removed a crucifix from his room in a hospital," said Navid Kermani, a German writer of Persian origin. "Such punishment has rarely been discussed in Europe." At the same time, Italian journalist Oriana Fallaci's The Rage and the Pride, which describes Muslims as "rats", is freely sold everywhere in Europe, Kermani said." (Julio Godoy ‘In Europe, anti-cartoon voices rise’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/HB10Aa02.html Feb 10, 2006).

In 2000, ariel sharon marched into the al aqsa mosque in jerusalem protected by a couple of thousand heavily armed jewish troops. He wasn’t protesting about any infringement on his freedom of movement. He was acting as a provocateur – hoping to provoke the palestinians into a violent response which would enable him to bring to an end all peace negotiations with the palestinians and enable the jos to carry out even more repressive measures against palestinians. (he knew this would result in the deaths of jews but believed the sacrifice was worth it). But he was also warmongering. He was making a statement of intent that one day jewish racists would demolish the al aqsa mosque and push all palestinians out of their own country. What need would there be for the al aqsa mosque if there weren’t any palestinians in palestine? The palestinians responded violently not because they are violent by nature, nor because they were upset that someone had trespassed on sacred moslem land or had insulted their prophet, but because the world’s most renown terrorist, mass murderer, and war criminal, was announcing an act of war against them. In the hail of a million and a half bullets, the heroic palestinians battled against one of the most highly trained, and barbaric, armies in the world.

Five years later, the same warmongering tactic was used by europe’s jewish-owned media. Once again racist jews were announcing their promise of another proxy jewish war against the moslem world in the hope of provoking a violent reaction from moslems which would help to boost european support for such a war. Anyone who believes the cartoon issue is about freedom of speech is seriously out of touch with current political realities. It is ludicrous to believe that the large numbers of commentators in the western media who see the cartoon issue as a question of free speech, care anything about human rights when they have done nothing to protest about the gross infringements of human rights in palestine. Whilst these highly educated, highly sophisticated, buffoons were trying to turn the controversy over the publication of the cartoons into a matter of free speech, the people on the streets in the moslem world saw what cartoons were really about – an announcement by the jewish racists controlling the european media of a war against the innocent people of the middle east. The jewish- commissioned cartoons were not merely blasphemous and anti-moslem, they were a declaration of war by europe’s jewish racists against the decent people in the middle east who are revolted by jos racism. "The publication of the 12 cartoons, and the reaction on both sides, is a classic case of how propaganda of the crudest sort is utilized to mold mass attitudes and whip up entire populations into a state of hysteria. Hate and fear are created out of thin air by the most skillful means, and stereotypes take the place of reality as the world prepares for war. That's what this is all about: the hate propaganda emanating from certain quarters in Europe and the U.S. amounts to preparations for war just as much as the manufacture of arms and the mobilization of armies at the border. We are being psychologically prepared for another world war, and the first shots are being fired from the pages of Jyllands-Posten. I have the sinking feeling that they won't be the last…" (Justin Raimondo ‘Rotten in Denmark: Flemming Rose and the clash of civilizations’ http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=8512 February 8, 2006).

The jewish owned media in europe declared war against the islamic world and they got a war like response from people sick to death of having to suffer because of jewish racism. It would have been better for moslems to have reacted against these racist cartoons not with violence but with peaceful and dignified street demonstrations and a political boycott of danish goods to try and show the danes, and their european allies, that europe’s jewish neocons are a threat to the economic and national interests of denmark and all other european countries. It is to be hoped everyone will help to boycott danish goods. It is important to punish the danes as an example to all those who pledge their allegiance to the cause of jewish racism and jewish supremacism. Hopefully it will make the danes realize their national and economic interests are the opposite of the interests of the jos and the jewish traitors who seem to have infiltrated danish society and politics. The palestinians are leading the way in resisting jewish racism and jewish world domination. It is up to the rest of the world to join them in their intifada against the evil jewish empire.