War Against Russia For Israel; Hell No We Won’t Go!

Israel Lobby Pushes for US Action Against the Syrian Government (to weaken Iran)

In Russia Today’s recent Crosstalk program on Syria, guest James Morris was brave enough to incisively point out the taboo fact that the Israel lobby has been in the forefront in pushing a hardline interventionist approach for the US toward that divided country.

The host and the two other guests on the show pooh-poohed the idea on the grounds that (in their minds) it would not be in Israel’s national interest to topple the secular Assad regime and possibly bring about an Islamist state that could be even more hostile to Israel.

But when one moves from speculation to an analysis of the actual position of members of the Israel lobby, one can see that Morris was completely correct.

Moreover, Morris was completely correct in pointing out that the Israel lobby’s position has nothing to do with ending oppression, and everything to do with Israeli security, as members of the Israel lobby have perceived Israel’s interest (which might not be the same as the Crosstalk threesome.)

The neoconservatives, the vanguard of the Israel lobby, have especially been  ardent in their advocacy of a hardline, interventionist position toward  Syria.

Evidence abounds for this finding, but it is best encapsulated by an  August 2011 open letter from  the neoconservative Foundation for the Defense  of Democracies (an organization which claims to address any “threat facing  America, Israel and the West”)  to  President Obama, urging  him to take  stronger measures against Syria.

Among the  signatories of the letter are  such neocon luminaries  as: Elliott Abrams (son-in-law of neocon “godfather”  Norman Podhoretz and a former National Security adviser to President George  W. Bush); the Council on Foreign Relations’ Max Boot; “Weekly Standard”  editor Bill Kristol;   Douglas Feith (Under Secretary of Defense for Policy  under George W. Bush and an author of the “Clean Break” policy paper);  Joshua Muravchik (affiliated with the American Enterprise Institute [AEI],  the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, and “Commentary”);  Frederick W. Kagan (AEI, co-author of the “surge” in Iraq);  Robert Kagan  (co-founder of the Project for the New American Century PNAC); James Woolsey  (head of the CIA under Clinton and chair of  the  Foundation for Defense of  Democracies); Randy Scheunemann (former President of the Committee for the  Liberation of Iraq and foreign affairs adviser to John McCain in his 2008  presidential campaign); Reuel Marc Gerecht (former Director of the Project  for the New American Century’s Middle East Initiative and a former resident  fellow at AEI); Michael Makovsky (advisor to the propagandistic Office of  Special Plans, which was under Douglas Feith); John Hannah ( senior fellow  at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy [WINEP] and a former  national security adviser to U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney); and  Gary  Schmitt (AEI and former President for the Project for a New American  Century).


As Morris notes in his presentation, elimination of the Assad regime in  Syria was not an idea conceived by either  the neocons or the broader Israel  lobby; rather it  can be traced back to the Israeli  Likudniks, being  articulated by Oded Yinon in his 1982 piece, “A Strategy for Israel in the  Nineteen Eighties.”

In this article, Yinon called for Israel to use  military means to bring about the dissolution of  Israel’s neighboring  states and their fragmentation into a mosaic of ethnic and sectarian  groupings.

Yinon believed that this would not be a difficult undertaking  because nearly all the Arab states were afflicted with internal ethnic and  religious divisions. In essence, the end result would be a Middle East of  powerless mini-statelets that could in no way confront Israeli power.  Lebanon, then facing divisive chaos, was Yinon’s model for the entire Middle  East.

Yinon wrote: “Lebanon’s total dissolution into five provinces serves  as a precedent for the entire Arab world including Egypt, Syria, Iraq and  the Arabian peninsula and is already following that track. The dissolution  of Syria and Iraq later on into ethnically or religiously unique areas such  as in Lebanon, is Israel’s primary target on the Eastern front in the long  run, while the dissolution of the military power of those states serves as  the primary short term target.” (Quoted in “The Transparent Cabal,” p. 51)

What stands out in the stark contrast to the debate taking place  today is that Yinon’s rationale for  eliminating the dictatorial regimes in  Syria and elsewhere in the Middle East had absolutely nothing to do with  their oppressive practices and lack of democracy, but rather was based  solely on Israel’s geostrategic interests-the aim being to permanently  weaken Israel’s enemies.

The neoconservatives took up the gist of the  Yinon’s position  in their 1996 Clean Break policy paper, whose authors  included neocons Richard Perle, David Wurmser, Douglas Feith, which was  presented to then incoming Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. It  urged him  to use military force against a number of Israel’s enemies, which beginning  with Iraq would include  “weakening, containing, and even rolling back  Syria.”

Once again the fundamental concern was Israeli security, not  liberty and democracy for the people of those countries. (“The Transparent  Cabal,” p. 90)

Numerous neocons before and after 9/11 expressed the need to  confront Syria in order to protect the security of both the United States  and Israel, whose interests they claimed coincided.  And this position on  Syria was concurred in  by Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, who, one  month before the US invasion of Iraq,  identified it, along with Libya and  Iran,  as an ideal target for  future US action.

Sharon stated:  “These are  irresponsible states, which must be disarmed of weapons [of] mass  destruction, and a successful American move in Iraq as a model will make  that easier to achieve.” ( Quoted in “The Transparent Cabal,”  p. 172)

A month after Bush’s 2004 re-election,  Bill Kristol would emphasize  the key position of Syria in the “war on terrorism.”  He wrote in the  “Weekly Standard” that because Syria was allegedly interfering with  America’s efforts to put down the insurgency  in Iraq,  it was thus  essential for the United States “to get serious about dealing with Syria as  part of winning in Iraq, and in the broader Middle East.” (Quoted in “The  Transparent Cabal,” pp. 253-254)

The close ties  between Syria and Iran would begin to provide a  fundamental reason for the neocons’ desire to take action against Syria.  It  was this factor that shaped neocon thinking on the Israel’s July 2006  incursion into Lebanon.  Some months after the Israeli invasion, neocon  Meyrav Wurmser would affirm that it was neocon influence in the Bush administration that  was setting US policy on Lebanon, with the aim being a direct Israeli  confrontation with Syria. “The neocons are responsible for the fact that  Israel got a lot of time and space,” Wurmser stated. “They believed that  Israel should be allowed to win. A great part of it was the thought that  Israel should fight against the real enemy, the one backing Hizbullah. It  was obvious that it is impossible to fight directly against Iran, but the  thought was that its strategic and important ally should be hit.”  Furthermore, “If Israel had hit Syria, it would have been such a harsh blow  for Iran that it would have weakened it and [changed] the strategic map in  the Middle East.” (Quoted in “The Transparent Cabal,” p. 278)

And any action by Iran to protect its Syrian ally would provide a  casus belli for the United States to attack Iran, which is what the neocons  sought.  Michael Ledeen opined, “The only way we are going to win this war  is to bring down those regimes in Tehran and Damascus and they are not going  to fall as a result of fighting between their terrorist proxies in Gaza and  Lebanon on the one hand, and Israel on the other. Only the United States can  accomplish it.” (Quoted in “The Transparent Cabal,” p. 279)  Bill Kristol argued the same point in his article,  “It’s Our War,”  underscoring the need for direct American involvement in the ongoing  conflict. America “might consider countering this act of Iranian aggression  [arms provided to Hezbollah]  with a military strike against Iranian nuclear  facilities.” ( Quoted in “The Transparent Cabal,” p. 279)

As can be seen, the goal of eliminating the Assad Baathist regime  has existed among Israeli Likudniks and the neocons for some time.  And it  currently propels the demand for militant action  against the Syrian  government.    Moreover, action taken against Syria has become viewed as a  way of seriously weakening Iran (perceived as a much more dangerous enemy),  or even leading to war with it.    That Israel might not benefit from regime  change in Syria, and that some in Israel might actually fear such a  development, does not alter the obvious fact that the neocons and much of  the overall Israel lobby support it.  And it is they who affect the policy  of the United States.

A Grim Trend of Presidential Administrations Making False Intelligence Claims

In Official Washington, words rarely mean what they say. For instance, if a U.S. government official voices “high confidence” in a supposed “intelligence assessment,” that usually means “we don’t have any real evidence, but we figure that if we say ‘high confidence’ enough that no one will dare challenge us.”

It’s also true that after a U.S. president or another senior official jumps to a conclusion that is not supported by evidence, the ranks of government careerists will close around him or her, making any serious or objective investigation almost impossible. Plus, if the dubious allegations are directed at some “enemy” state, then the mainstream media also will suppress skepticism. Prestigious “news” outlets will run “fact checks” filled with words in capital letters: “MISLEADING”; “FALSE”; or maybe “FAKE NEWS.”

Which is where things stand regarding President Trump’s rush to judgment within hours about an apparent chemical weapons incident in Syria’s Idlib province on April 4. Despite the fact that much of the information was coming from Al Qaeda and its propaganda-savvy allies, the mainstream U.S. media rushed emotional images onto what Trump calls “the shows”—upon which he says he bases his foreign policy judgments—and he blamed Syrian President Bashar Assad for the scores of deaths, including “beautiful little babies,” as Trump declared.

Given the neocon/liberal-interventionist domination of Official Washington’s foreign policy—and the professional Western propaganda shops working for Assad’s overthrow—there was virtually no pushback against the quick formulation of this new groupthink. All the predictable players played their predictable parts, from The New York Times to CNN to the Atlantic Council-related Bellingcat and its “citizen journalists.”

All the Important People who appeared on the TV shows or who were quoted in the mainstream media trusted the images provided by Al Qaeda-related propagandists and ignored documented prior cases in which the Syrian rebels staged chemical weapons incidents to implicate the Assad government.

‘We All Know’

One smug CNN commentator pontificated, “we all know what happened in 2013,” a reference to the enduring conventional wisdom that an Aug. 21, 2013, sarin attack outside Damascus was carried out by the Assad government and that President Obama then failed to enforce his “red line” against chemical weapons use. This beloved groupthink survives even though evidence later showed the operation was carried out by rebels, most likely by Al Qaeda’s Nusra Front with help from Turkish intelligence, as investigative journalist Seymour Hersh reported and brave Turkish officials later confirmed.

But Official Washington’s resistance to reality was perhaps best demonstrated one year ago when The Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg published a detailed article about Obama’s foreign policy that repeated the groupthink about Obama shrinking from his “red line” but included the disclosure that Director of National Intelligence James Clapper had informed the president that U.S. intelligence lacked any “slam dunk” evidence that Assad’s military was guilty.

One might normally think that such a warning from DNI Clapper would have spared Obama from the media’s judgment that he had chickened out, especially given the later evidence pointing the finger of blame at the rebels. After all, why should Obama have attacked the Syrian military and killed large numbers of soldiers and possibly civilians in retaliation for a crime that they had nothing to do with—and indeed an offense for which the Assad government was being framed? But Official Washington’s propaganda bubble is impervious to inconvenient reality.

Nor does anyone seem to know that a United Nations report disclosed testimonies from eyewitnesses about how rebels and their allied “rescue workers” had staged one “chlorine attack” so it would be blamed on the Assad government. Besides these Syrians coming forward to expose the fraud, the evidence that had been advanced to “prove” Assad’s guilt included bizarre claims from the rebels and their friends that they could tell that chlorine was inside a “barrel bomb” because of the special sound that it made while it was descending.

Despite the exposure of that one frame-up, the U.N. investigators—under intense pressure from Western governments to give them something to pin on the Assad regime—accepted rebel claims about two other alleged chlorine attacks, an implausible finding that is now repeatedly cited by the Western media even as it ignores the case of the debunked “chlorine attack.” Again, one might think that proof of two staged chemical weapons attacks—one involving sarin and the other chlorine—would inject some skepticism about the April 4 case, but apparently not.

All that was left was for President Trump to “act presidential” and fire off 59 Tomahawk missiles at some Syrian airbase on April 6, reportedly killing several Syrian soldiers and nine civilians, including four children, collateral damage that the mainstream U.S. media knows not to mention in its hosannas of praise for Trump’s decisiveness.

Home-Free Groupthink

There might be some pockets of resistance to the groupthink among professional analysts at the CIA, but their findings—if they contradict what the President has already done—will be locked away probably for generations if not forever.

In other words, the new Assad-did-it groupthink appeared to be home free, a certainty that The New York Times could now publish without having to add annoying words like “alleged” or “possibly,” simply stating Assad’s guilt as flat-fact.

Thomas L. Friedman, the Times’ star foreign policy columnist, did that and then extrapolated from his certainty to propose that the U.S. should ally itself with the jihadists fighting to overthrow Assad, a position long favored by U.S. “allies,” Saudi Arabia and Israel.a

“Why should our goal right now be to defeat the Islamic State in Syria?” Friedman asked before proposing outright support for the jihadists: “We could dramatically increase our military aid to anti-Assad rebels, giving them sufficient anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles to threaten Russian, Iranian, Hezbollah and Syrian helicopters and fighter jets and make them bleed, maybe enough to want to open negotiations. Fine with me.”

So, not only have the mainstream U.S. media stars decided that they know what happen on April 4 in a remote Al Qaeda-controlled section of Idlib province (without seeing any real evidence), but they are now building off their groupthink to propose that the Trump administration hand out antiaircraft missiles to the “anti-Assad rebels” who, in reality, are under the command of Al Qaeda and/or the Islamic State.

In other words, Friedman and other deep thinkers are advocating material support for terrorists who would get sophisticated American ground-to-air missiles that could shoot down Russian planes thus exacerbating already dangerous U.S.-Russian tensions or take down some civilian airliner as Al Qaeda has done in the past. If someone named Abdul had made such a suggestion, he could expect a knock on his door from the FBI.

Expert Skepticism

Yet, before President Trump takes Friedman’s advice – arming up Al Qaeda and entering into a de facto alliance with Islamic State – we might want to make sure that we aren’t being taken in again by a clever Al Qaeda psychological operation, another staged chemical weapons attack.

With the U.S. intelligence community effectively silenced by the fact that the president has already acted, Theodore Postol, a technology and national security expert at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, undertook his own review of the supposed evidence cited by Trump’s White House to issue a four-page “intelligence assessment” on April 11 asserting with “high confidence” that Assad’s military delivered a bomb filled with sarin on the town of Khan Sheikdoun on the morning of April 4.

Trump Elect Is Bangin’

Trump Breaks a Record, that’s totally bad news

April 13, New YorkIn response to the Trump administration dropping the 21,600-pound GBU-43/B bomb in Afghanistan, the Center for Constitutional Rights issued the following statement:

Not even 100 days into its term, the Trump administration has rapidly expanded and intensified the already-extensive U.S. military interventions around the world, by engaging in a widespread and destructive multi-country bombing campaign with questionable, and in some cases nil, legal authorization.

Among dangerous other military escalations, his administration conducted a raid in Yemen that left nine children and one U.S. Navy SEAL dead, airstrikes in Syria and Iraq that have resulted in more than a thousand civilian deaths, and today, for the first time in history, dropped the largest non-nuclear weapon in the U.S. arsenal on targets in Afghanistan’s Nangarhar province on the border of Pakistan.

This is all happening as the Trump administration has loosened regulations designed to limit civilian casualties, while engaging in dangerous saber-rattling around the nuclear arsenal.

While the purported legal authorization for some of these military engagements is outdated and questionable, others, such as strikes in Syria, are clearly without legal authority under U.S. law, and, despite the adrenaline-like appeal to hypocrites and hawks in the Beltway, they also likely violate international law.

The Trump administration – undeterred by law and unconcerned with human suffering – is setting the world on a destructive course of escalating war, death and destruction. We call on the people to demand an end to this dangerous further slide into endless, unconstrained militarism that he and his generals are playing out like an incoherent game across the globe, and further call on the media and the courts to expose the illegality of his actions.

Grateful Syrians React To Trump Strike: ‘I’ll Name My Son Donald’


Daily Wire

On Thursday night, President Donald Trump ordered the launch of 59 Tomahawk missiles into a Syrian airfield in response to Bashar al-Assad’s gruesome chemical weapons attack on his own people earlier this week.

The Main Reason for the Next Gaza War

For elite military men there’s apparently no greater blow than the cancellation of a mission they’re primed to carry out. This adolescent/psychopathic  frustration, whether of a current or former officer, can determine the fate of millions

Apr 09, 2017.haaretz

On June 19, 1972, the Sayaret Matkal special operations unit set out on a mission beyond the Lebanese border, where a group of senior Syrian officers was scheduled to tour. Prime Minister Golda Meir had approved Operation Argaz and the unit infiltrating enemy lines in the dead of night to kidnap the officers, who could be used as bargaining chips.

The commander, Ehud Barak, headed the main ambush force with Uzi Dayan, while Benjamin Netanyahu commanded the blocking force. But soon enough the mission was called off; Chief of General Staff David Elazar feared that the force would be detected by the Land Rover accompanying the Syrians, so he ordered a withdrawal.

A Hebrew-language biography of Barak, “Wars of My Life,” portrays the cancellation of the mission as one of the hardest times in the decorated soldier’s life. Barak lost it; he lashed out at Elazar, saying the chief of staff hadn’t understood the situation in the field and ignored that Netanyahu’s force could have taken out the Syrian vehicle.

Netanyahu also reacted impulsively, deciding on the spot to forgo his plan to extend his service. Instead, he left the army some time later and flew off to study at MIT.

Anyone who hasn’t served in an elite unit in the Israel Defense Forces might find it hard to understand the extreme reactions by these two future Israeli prime ministers. Only a month earlier both were part of the successful seizure and rescue of a hijacked Sabena airliner, after which they were lauded as heroes. Moreover, only a few days later, there was another opportunity and the Syrians actually were snatched.

Image result for israelis watch gaza war from hilltop

Only in Israel: zionist squatters watching the bombs drop on Palestinian babies: morality of a people so skewed that murder is a public spectacle. An astonishing thing to see in this day and age!

But for elite military men, there’s apparently no greater blow than the cancellation of a mission they were primed to carry out. It’s hard not to conclude that this irrepressible drive to act is what led Barak, when he was chief of staff, to plan a grandiose scheme to eliminate Saddam Hussein that ended with the Tze’elim B training disaster that took five soldiers’ lives. Apparently that same appetite for risk is what led him to push enthusiastically as defense minister for an attack on Iran, which fortunately didn’t happen.

Barak and Netanyahu are just examples; this drive is also evident in the biographies of Ariel Sharon, Moshe Dayan and other Israeli leaders, especially those who served in elite army units. Unfortunately, this kind of adolescent/psychopathic  frustration can determine the fate of millions.

It’s an old legacy of the IDF, perhaps from the days in the 1930s of Orde Wingate, the adventurous and disturbed British warrior who for some reason is admired by Israeli defense officials. Wingate, who was described by a colleague, British officer Wilfred Thesiger, as arrogant, unruly and contemptuous of authority, was the man who laid the foundations of the IDF’s combat doctrine.

This emotional apparatus is worth remembering these days when the Gaza border may be heating up. Military reporters are once again explaining that “the next round” is only a matter of time; once again, a few thousand Palestinians and a few dozen Israelis will be killed. Then they’ll tell us that the attack was unpreventable.

But particularly now, and throughout the spring and summer, it’s important to remember that someone is eager to release the safety catch and carry out the action for which he has trained for weeks or months. Some ambitious officer – in uniform or in civilian clothes – is yearning to do battle, show his excellence or maybe make up for some past failure. He’s convinced that this time he’ll do better.

This isn’t speculation. It’s a recurring theme in the biographies of such people.

Zio US strikes had been prepared before the chemical attack

Assad chem weapons attack assertion was not even investigated before the US strike against Syria so that evidence could not prevent the US air strike.  This is the PNAC path to WW3

Trump is now officially zombified as his predecessors, no one has to wonder anymore:

“I will tell you it’s already happened that my attitude toward Syria and Assad has changed very much,” Trump said.
“When you kill innocent children — innocent babies — babies — little babies with a chemical gas that is so lethal, people were shocked to hear what gas it was, that crosses many, many lines. Beyond a red line, many, many lines,” Trump said.

Osama Bin-Laden, CIA asset did the incredible 911, Saddam had WMS that were never found, and Obama killed Osama Bin Laden long after his real death.

Breaking: Thousands of Saudi-Backed Terrorists Ready to Enter Syria via Border with Jordan

Jordan Closes Border to Saudi-Backed Militants in Syria, Forces Wounded Terrorists to Go to Israel 
Terrorists Launch Coup in Southern Syria, Defeated Commander Escapes to Jordan 
Jordan’s Army Prevents Humanitarian Aids from Approaching Syrian Refugees 
Syria-Bound US Arms Cargos Found in Jordan’s Black Market 

Washington is Lying.
The Media is Lying.

Both Trump and Obama have blood on their hands. The Chemical Weapons Attack is being used as a “False Flag”, a pretext and a justification to wage an illegal war of aggression. 

The United Nations in a 2013 report confirms that Syrian opposition “rebels” (supported by Washington) “may have used chemical weapons against [Syrian] government forces.”

The UN report refutes Washington’s allegations that the government of Bashar al Assad was using chemical weapons against his own people. 

What the UN mission findings confirm is that the US sponsored opposition “rebels” largely composed of Al Qaeda affiliated groups, financed and supported by the Western military alliance were responsible for these 2013 chemical weapons attacks.

Moreover, as confirmed in an earlier report, the Al Qaeda rebels were being trained in the use of chemical weapons by specialists on contract to the Pentagon.

Washington (which supports the opposition rebels in the use of chemical weapons) rather than Damascus is responsible for extensive crimes against humanity.*


If you follow the social media account of Syrian rebels and their media people, they make claims of chemical weapons attack almost weekly (and some times more frequently) and sometimes they say that there were an attack by chemical weapons but only one was killed from it. Like this one from yesterday: how come this didn’t get media attention and how come it did not result in US missile strike? How come?