In the past 40 years, we have never been closer to World War III than we are today

The Breakdown Of U.S.-Israeli Relations Brings Us Several Steps Closer To World War III

In the past 40 years, we have never been closer to World War III than we are today

Image Credits: U.S. State Dept.

by Michael Snyder | Economic Collapse | March 4, 2015

In the past 40 years, we have never been closer to World War III than we are today.  If you ask Americans to name what area of the globe they believe World War III will begin, the number one choice by a landslide would probably be the Middle East.  And thanks to the stunning breakdown of U.S.-Israeli relations, we are now closer to that war than we have been in decades.  Since the 1970s, the United States has served as the major buffer between Israel and her Islamic neighbors.  Israel has trusted the United States to protect it, and Israel’s enemies have known that an all-out assault on Israel would be fruitless because the U.S. military would step in.  When a minor conflict has erupted in the region, the United States has always rushed in diplomatically to settle things down.  But now the relationship between the Israeli government and the Obama administration is near a breaking point, and tensions in the Middle East just continue to intensify.  At this moment, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu no longer trusts Barack Obama to do what is right for Israel, and it is an open secret that Obama pretty much despises Netanyahu.  And during his speech to Congress on Tuesday, Netanyahu once again made it abundantly clear that his government will never, ever allow Iran to get nuclear weapons.  If Israel believes that Iran is even getting close, Israel will attack.  But instead of trying to prevent this from happening, Barack Obama is negotiating a deal with Iran that would give the Iranians pretty much everything that they want and would allow them to build all the nukes they desire in about ten years.  Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu says that this is a “bad deal”, and he is right.

The U.S. relationship with Israel is one of the most touchy political topics in the country today, and it is going to become even more of a hot button issue as time goes by.  There are millions of Americans that passionately love the nation of Israel, and there are also millions of Americans that are vehemently anti-Israel.  It is amazing that a nation that is about the size of New Jersey and that only has a little bit more than one-tenth of one percent of the global population can perpetually be at the center of global controversy.  Of course those of us that are Christians know that the Bible said that this would happen in the last days, so the truth is that none of us should be surprised.  No matter how much effort global leaders put into achieving “peace in the Middle East”, it never seems to happen, and now things are poised to go to a dangerous new level.

On Tuesday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu laid out his case to Congress during a very forceful 40 minute speech…

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu warned Tuesday that a proposed agreement between world powers and Iran was “a bad deal” that would not stop Tehran from getting nuclear weapons — but would rather pave its way to getting lots of them and leave the Jewish State in grave peril.

In a dramatic address to the U.S. Congress at what he said was a “fateful” crossroads of history, Netanyahu openly sided with President Barack Obama’s Republican critics and sparked an immediate and furious reaction from the White House, as relations between Washington and Israel spun into their deepest chasm for many years.

If Israel has lost all trust in the Obama administration, that makes it much more likely that it will choose to take unilateral military action against Iran.

With that in mind, consider the following quotes from Netanyahu’s speech…

-“The greatest danger facing our world is the marriage of militant Islam with nuclear weapons.”

-“That is exactly what could happen if the deal being negotiated is accepted by Iran. That deal would not prevent Iran developing nuclear weapons. It would all but guarantee that Iran gets those weapons, lots of them.”

-“I know this won’t come as a shock to many of you, but Iran not only defies inspectors, but it also plays a pretty good game of ‘hide and cheat’ with them.”

-“The ideology of Iran’s revolutionary regime is deeply rooted in militant Islam, and that’s why this regime will always be an enemy of America.”

-“If anyone thinks this deal kicks the can down the road, think again. When we get down that road we’ll face a much more dangerous Iran, a Middle East littered with nuclear bombs, and a countdown to a potential nuclear nightmare.”

-“We must all stand together to stop Iran’s march of conquest, subjugation, and terror.”

-“Even if Israel has to stand alone, Israel will stand.”

-“That’s why this deal is so bad. It doesn’t block Iran’s path to the bomb, it paves Iran’s path to the bomb.”

-“I can guarantee you this: The days when the Jewish people remain passive in the face of genocidal enemies, those days are over.”

And near the end of his speech, Netanyahu referred to the Holocaust when he spoke to Elie Wiesel who happened to be sitting in the audience…

Praising the presence in the audience of concentration camp survivor, author, Nobel Peace Prize winner and Nazi-hunter Elie Wiesel, the prime minister told him, “Your life and work gives meaning to the words, ‘Never again.’”

Does that sound like a man that is just going to sit by and watch Iran build nuclear weapons?

Reaction by members of Congress was mixed.  Many Republicans were thrilled by Netanyahu’s address.  But many Democrats were outraged, and Nancy Pelosi was nearly brought to tears…

“I was near tears throughout the prime minister’s speech — saddened by the insult to the intelligence of the United States as part of the P5 +1 nations,” said Nancy Pelosi, the leader of Democrats in the House, referring to the group of world powers negotiation with Tehran, “and saddened by the condescension toward our knowledge of the threat posed by Iran and our broader commitment to preventing nuclear proliferation.”

Most Americans don’t realize this, but an Israeli attack against Iranian nuclear facilities could be closer than almost any of us would dare to imagine.

In fact, just a few days ago there was a report that a planned strike in 2014 was aborted at the last minute after Barack Obama threatened to shoot down Israeli jets…

According to Al-Jarida, the Netanyahu government took the decision to strike Iran some time in 2014 soon after Israel had discovered the United States and Iran had been involved in secret talks over Iran’s nuclear program and were about to sign an agreement in that regard behind Israel’s back.

The report claimed that an unnamed Israeli minister who has good ties with the US administration revealed the attack plan to Secretary of State John Kerry, and that Obama then threatened to shoot down the Israeli jets before they could reach their targets in Iran.

But next time, it might be different.  As I discussed in a previous article, there are reports coming out of the Middle East that indicate that Saudi Arabia plans to allow Israel to use their airspace to strike Iran.

In addition, new evidence of a secret nuclear facility near Tehran that Iran had not told anyone about has been revealed in recent days.  If it turns out that Iran’s nuclear program is actually far more advanced that they have been admitting, that will send the probability of an Israeli strike absolutely soaring.

For years, Iran and Israel have been on a collision course, and now time is running out.

And when war does erupt in the Middle East, the death and destruction could be on a scale that is absolutely unimaginable.

So let us pray that peace prevails for as long as possible.  Unfortunately, thanks to the foolishness of the Obama administration, the period of peace that we have been enjoying does not look like it is going to last too much longer.

Obama-Netanyahu “Fallout” is Theater – Planned in 2009

US and Israel attempting to establish feigned "diplomatic row" to justify "unilateral" Israeli attack on Iran

Image Credits: secdef, Flickr

by Tony Cartalucci | Land Destroyer | March 4, 2015

In a 2009 US policy paper published by the corporate-financier funded Brookings Institution, it was made clear that the US was determined to provoke Iran into a conflict and effect regime change at any cost – up to and including an outright military invasion and occupation of Iran with US troops.

However, before it came to that, the Brookings Institution’s policymakers explored other options including fomenting US-backed political unrest coupled with covert, violent force, the use of US State Department listed foreign terrorist organizations to carry out assassinations and attacks within Iran, and limited airstrikes carried out by either the US or Israel, or both.

In retrospect, 6 years on, all of these tricks have not only been attempted to one degree or another in Iran, but have been demonstrably employed in neighboring Syria to diminish its strength – which according to Brookings – is a necessary prerequisite before waging war on Iran.

And of particular interest – considering what appears to be a growing diplomatic row between the United States and Israel – is just how precisely the US planned to covertly back what would be made to appear as a “unilateral” Israeli first strike on Iran – an attack that appears to be in the process of being justified through a carefully orchestrated propaganda campaign now unfolding.

From the Mouths of US Policymakers Themselves

The Brookings Institution’s 2009 policy paper titled, “Which Path to Persia? Options for a New American Strategy Toward Iran,” makes clear that negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program is merely theater, and that it will be used to give the world the impression that the United States explored all possible “peaceful” options before resorting to violent regime change.  The report states specifically that:

…any military operation against Iran will likely be very unpopular around the world and require the proper international context— both to ensure the logistical support the operation would require and to minimize the blowback from it. The best way to minimize international opprobrium and maximize support (however, grudging or covert) is to strike only when there is a widespread conviction that the Iranians were given but then rejected a superb offer—one so good that only a regime determined to acquire nuclear weapons and acquire them for the wrong reasons would turn it down. Under those circumstances, the United States (or Israel) could portray its operations as taken in sorrow, not anger, and at least some in the international community would conclude that the Iranians “brought it on themselves” by refusing a very good deal.

Of course, Iran – as admitted to by Brookings themselves – is not governed by irrational leadership, and would not turn down a genuinely “superb offer.” The Brookings Institution admits openly that the US pursues a dual track foreign policy – one for public consumption (making “superb offers”) and another aimed at ensuring Iran looks as unreasonable as possible.

At one point in the policy paper, Brookings would state:

The truth is that these all would be challenging cases to make. For that reason, it would be far more preferable if the United States could cite an Iranian provocation as justification for the airstrikes before launching them. Clearly, the more outrageous, the more deadly, and the more unprovoked the Iranian action, the better off the United States would be. Of course, it would be very difficult for the United States to goad Iran into such a provocation without the rest of the world recognizing this game, which would then undermine it. (One method that would have some possibility of success would be to ratchet up covert regime change efforts in the hope that Tehran would retaliate overtly, or even semi-overtly, which could then be portrayed as an unprovoked act of Iranian aggression.)

Here, Brookings policymakers openly conspire to undermine global peace by “goading” another nation into a war it neither wants nor will benefit from. Provoking a nation that poses no threat to the national security of the United States is a clear violation of international law – with the Brookings paper serving as a literal signed confession.

Yet despite this open admission, conspiring against world peace, what is of more interest is the United States’ plans to disavow any responsibility for an attack it would use its regional proxy, Israel, to carry out in its place. It states specifically under a chapter titled, “Allowing or Encouraging an Israeli Military Strike,” that:

…the most salient advantage this option has over that of an American air campaign is the possibility that Israel alone would be blamed for the attack. If this proves true, then the United States might not have to deal with Iranian retaliation or the diplomatic backlash that would accompany an American military operation against Iran. It could allow Washington to have its cake (delay Iran’s acquisition of a nuclear weapon) and eat it, too (avoid undermining many other U.S. regional diplomatic initiatives).

To no one’s surprise the British Daily Mail now reports in an article titled, “President Obama threatened to shoot down Israeli jets if they attacked Iranian nuclear facilities last year, claim sources,” that:

President Obama is alleged to have stopped an Israeli military attack against Iran’s nuclear facilities in 2014 by threatening to shoot down Israeli jets before they could reach their targets, according to reports to emerge from the Middle East at the weekend

The threat from the U.S. forced Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu to abort a planned attack on Iraq, reported Kuwaiti newspaper Al-Jarida.

Netanyahu will be in Washington for an address to Congress on Tuesday aimed squarely at derailing Obama’s cherished bid for a diplomatic deal with Tehran.

Here, the Daily Mail repeats a growing narrative that dovetails neatly into long-standing US foreign policy described by the Brookings Institution’s report in 2009 – down to the letter. In fact, the prospect of “shooting down” Israeli planes was discussed as one of many props used in this geopolitical theater.

The US, as prescribed by Brookings, is portrayed as desperately trying to hammer out an almost unreasonably accommodation with Iran, while “mad dog” Israel seeks to unilaterally attack Iran – thus giving the US the plausible deniability it openly claimed it would disingenuously attempt to create ahead of any Israeli attack on Iran. It should be noted that the summation of Israel’s military might is a result long, extensive, and continuous US military support meaning that Israeli military operation is even possible without it.

Also of interest is Israel’s habitual, belligerent, serial acts of inhumanity against both its own people and the Palestinians whose land Tel Aviv has seized and continues to occupy. The nature of these acts is not one of self-preservation, but of intentional provocation – creating predictable political divides across the West easily manipulated particularly at times like these where a “regrettable” attack made upon Iran, a nation the West has thus far failed to topple with terrorism, US-backed sedition, sanctions, and covert provocations, is now in the cards.

It is also clear that the 2009 “Which Path to Persia?” policy paper still represents a vivid window into a much deeper and well-entrenched doctrine still to this day being used to reorder the Middle East into alignment with Western special interests.  It is a signed confession of a now evident conspiracy against global peace and stability. It should be read, in full, before the United Nations Security Council  before those who wrote it and the corporate-financier interests who sponsored it are brought to international justice.

Anything less proves that the United States and its regional proxies, not Iran, are the rogue states, working against global peace and stability, with many standing examples already of their atrocities on display, and more – apparently – still to come.