Posts Tagged ‘America and Israel’

Threatening Iran

July 20, 2009

By Paul Craig Roberts | Counterpunch, July 20,  2009

When Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, Japan did not spend years preparing her public case and demonstrating her deployment of forces for the attack.  Japan did not make a world issue out of her view that the US was denying Japan her role in the Pacific by hindering Japan’s access to raw materials and energy.

Similarly, when Hitler attacked Russia, he did not preface his invasion with endless threats and a public case that blamed the war on England.

These events happened before the PSYOPS era.  Today, America and Israel’s wars of aggression are preceded by years of propaganda and international meetings, so that by the time the attack comes it is an expected event, not a monstrous surprise attack with its connotation of naked aggression.

The US, which has been threatening Iran with attack for years, has passed the job to Israel.  During the third week of July, the American vice president and secretary of state gave Israel the go-ahead.  Israel has made great public disclosure of its warships passing through the Suez Canal on their way to Iran.  “Muslim” Egypt is complicit, offering no objection to Israel’s naval forces on their way to a war crime under the Nuremberg standard that the US imposed on the world.

By the time the attack occurs, it will be old hat, an expected event, and, moreover, an event justified by years of propaganda asserting Iran’s perfidy.

Israel intends to dominate the Middle East.  Israel’s goal is to incorporate all of Palestine and southern Lebanon into “Greater Israel.”  The US intends to dominate the entire world, deciding who rules which countries and controlling resource flows.

The US and Israel are likely to succeed, because they have effective PSYOPS. For the most part, the world media follows the US media, which follows the US and Israeli governments’ lines.  Indeed, the American media is part of the PSYOPS of both countries.

According to Thierry Meyssan in the Swiss newspaper Zeit-Fragen, the CIA used SMS or text messaging and Twitter to spread disinformation about the Iranian election, including the false report that the Guardian Council had informed Mousavi that he had won the election.  When the real results were announced, Ahmadinejad’s reelection appeared to be fraudulent.

Iran’s fate awaits it.  A reasonable hypothesis to be entertained and examined is whether Iran’s Rafsanjani and Mousavi are in league with Washington to gain power in Iran. Both have lost out in the competition for government power in Iran.  Yet, both are egotistical and ambitious.  The Iranian Revolution of 1979 probably means nothing to them except an opportunity for personal power.  The way the West has always controlled the Middle East is by purchasing the politicians who are out of power and backing them in overthrowing the independent government.  We see this today in Sudan as well.

In the case of Iran, there is an additional factor that might align Rafsanjani with Washington. President Ahmadienijad attacked former President Rafsanjani, one of Iran’s most wealthy persons, as corrupt.  If Rafsanjani feels threatened by this attack, he has little choice but to try to overthrow the existing government.  This makes him the perfect person for Washington.

Perhaps there is a better explanation why Rafsanjani and Mousavi, two highly placed members of the Iranian elite, chose to persist in allegations of election fraud that have played into Washington’s hands by calling into question the legitimacy of the Iranian government. It cannot be that the office of president is worth such costs as the Iranian presidency is not endowed with decisive powers.

Without Rafsanjani and Mousavi, the US media could not have orchestrated the Iranian elections as “stolen,” an orchestration that the US government used to further isolate and discredit the Iranian government, making it easier for Iran to be attacked. Normally, well placed members of an elite do not help foreign enemies set their country up for attack.

An Israeli attack on Iran is likely to produce retaliation, which Washington will use to enter the conflict. Have the personal ambitions of Rafsanjani and Mousavi, and the naive youthful upper class Iranian protesters, set Iran up for destruction?

Consult a map and you will see that Iran is surrounded by a dozen countries that host US military bases. Why does anyone in Iran doubt that Iran is on her way to becoming another Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, in the end to be ruled by oil companies and an American puppet?

The Russians and Chinese are off balance because of successful American interventions in their spheres of influence, uncertain of the threat and the response. Russia could have prevented the coming attack on Iran, but, pressured by Washington,  Russia has not delivered the missile systems that Iran purchased.  China suffers from her own hubris as a rising economic power, and is about to lose her energy investments in Iran to US/Israeli aggression. China is funding America’s wars of aggression with loans, and  Russia is even helping the US to set up a puppet state in Afghanistan, thus opening up former Soviet central Asia to US hegemony.

The world is so impotent that even the bankrupt US can launch a new war of aggression and have it accepted as a glorious act of liberation in behalf of women’s rights, peace, and democracy.

Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He is coauthor of The Tyranny of Good Intentions.He can be reached at:

Time for the US to ditch the “Bush Doctrine” of pre-emptive war

April 19, 2009

By Paul J. Balles | Redress, April 19, 2009

Paul J. Balles calls on US President Barack Obama strongly to repudiate the Israeli-inspired “Bush Doctrine” of pre-emptive war and to urge Congress to pass legislation that permits war only as a legitimate act of defence”.

Suppose you and I are walking along the street in opposite directions. Now, suppose I don’t like your looks. You look threatening.

I can do several things: look away, go on about my walk and try to forget your threatening look, or I can return your threatening look and perhaps provoke you to challenge me.

On the other hand, I can assume, rightly or wrongly, that you are actually a threat to me. Assuming I’m strong enough, I might then hit you in order to disable the threat.

This, in short, is the theory and act of pre-emption, a theory and action that has been the basis of much foreign policy of both America and Israel.

In America, the application of the theory became the “Bush Doctrine”. However, it didn’t originate with George W. Bush but with Zionists like Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz and others in the Bush administration.

The act of striking pre-emptively is not new. The Soviet Union attacked Finland in 1941 after the Germans attacked Russia. The Japanese attacked Pearl Harbour to pre-empt America from controlling the South Pacific.

When the US invaded Iraq, the historian Arthur Schlesinger wrote that Bush’s grand strategy was “alarmingly similar to the policy that imperial Japan employed at the time of Pearl Harbour”.

By definition, a pre-emptive strike commonly refers to an attack made upon an enemy as a precautionary response to an anticipated or impending war, such as in a pre-emptive war.

The so-called “Israel Defence Forces” launched a pre-emptive attack on Arab forces in the 1967 Six Day War. They also pre-emptively bombed a suspected nuclear plant in Iraq in 1981 and another in Syria last year. They have pre-emptively struck Lebanon and Gaza.

Israel goaded America into a pre-emptive war in Iraq, and they have urged another pre-emptive war with Iran. The entire philosophy of dealing with unfriendly nations is “strike first and destroy any potential enemy or threat”.

Regardless of the arguments made for invading Iraq, Article 51 of the UN Charter makes it clear that self-defence is restricted to a response to an armed attack”. Article 2, Section 4 of the U.N. Charter bars the threat or use of force against any state in the absence of an acute and imminent actual threat”.

Iraq, which had been under sanctions for 10 years, certainly could not have been considered an acute and imminent threat. Nor could Hamas in Gaza or Hezbollah in Lebanon to the Israelis. Iran, not having attacked anyone for 200 years, certainly does not qualify as an acute and imminent threat.

Noam Chomsky made a distinction between pre-emptive war and preventive war, though both are excuses for unwarranted aggression.

Whatever the justifications for pre-emptive war might be, they do not hold for preventive war, particularly as that concept is interpreted by its current enthusiasts: the use of military force to eliminate an invented or imagined threat, so that even the term “preventive” is too charitable. Preventive war is, very simply, the supreme crime that was condemned at Nuremberg.

The “potential enemy” may not be any more threat than I saw in your threatening look as we walked along the same street. However, that doesn’t matter if I am searching for threatening looks.

In another article, I referred to this Israeli sickness as paranoia. George W. Bush was infected with the same disease, which resulted in unnecessary and unjustified wars.

It’s time to admit that the Bush Doctrine was a grave, inhuman wrong. Barack Obama should strongly repudiate it and urge the US Congress to pass legislation that permits war only as a legitimate act of defence.

Paul J. Balles is a retired American university professor and freelance writer who has lived in the Middle East for many years. For more information, see

%d bloggers like this: