Is the Era of the “Double Standard” Coming to an End?
… by Gordon Duff, VT Editor … with New Eastern Outlook, Moscow
Inexorably, issues tied to the conflicts in the Middle East will focus on the US and Israel. Decades ago, Israel was spoken of as either America’s “aircraft carrier” or “junkyard dog.”
Now, as we see Israeli influence wielded against President Obama and his national security team, attempting to derail US foreign policy triumphs, to the point of advocating additional sanctions on Iran or even an unprovoked and illegal military aggression, something very ugly comes to light.
Simply put, Iran would never have come to the table in Geneva unless it had no nuclear weapons program. This simple fact was confirmed by the Central Intelligence Agency in their 2007 National Intelligence Estimate.
Similarly, Veterans Today editor, Clinton Bastin, former chief nuclear weapons designer for the US Department of Energy, acting as a consultant to the IAEA, informed Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu of his conclusions, identical to those of the CIA.
Bastin confirmed that Iran neither possessed nor were they likely ever to possess necessary technology to convert twenty percent enriched uranium gas to weapons grade material. Netanyahu, in his response, thanked Bastin and acknowledged receipt of this information from the highest-level source available.
America’s claims of having “clean hands” disappeared soon after the reported wave of good will said to have generated by 9/11. Torture, rendition, allegations of drug trafficking in Afghanistan and massive oil theft from Iraq were soon to surface.
Later, more serious stories would come to light, NSA revelations from Edward Snowden, packaged for the mainstream media and more serious allegations, evidence of nuclear weapon use in Iraq discovered by Dr. Christopher Busby.
Or, more recently, evidence of a series of bio-chem warfare facilities brought to light by Jeffrey Silverman, just released from hospital in the Republic of Georgia after being attacked by what police claim were American security contractors.
Then again, the conflict in Syria brought to light the relationship between Al Qaeda and the west. If America knew Iran had no nuclear weapons program in 2005, if America knew Saddam had no WMD’s in 2003, did America also know there were no Al Qaeda training bases in Afghanistan to justify that incursion as well, a fact long in evidence.
Moreover, if America, Saudi Arabia and Israel can openly supply Al Qaeda led jihadists in Syria, when did that relationship begin, before 9/11, perhaps years before?
Some analysts tie Al Qaeda to Gladio operations that date well into the 1990s and before. If this is true and there are no proofs at this time that refutes this hypothesis, no position supporting US foreign policy in recent years can be trusted.
SAUDI ARABIA AND ISRAEL
What has been surprising is the clear differentiation between the responses of Saudi Arabia and Israel toward the current temporary concord with Iran.
Saudi Arabia has acknowledged continued suspicions and advocated diligence on the part of inspectors but has welcomed the agreement.
Saudi Arabia has also clearly acknowledged something else. It is now more than clear that their issues with Iran are now and have been based on what they see as a broad political threat Iran represents for the region, particularly in light of Iran’s relationship with Iraq.
The honesty in this is refreshing and is also useful in that it finally puts a realistic face on regional conflicts and the real issues that an “uncontained” Iran will bring to the forefront.
Israel, on the other hand, has chosen to pressure extremist elements in the US to sabotage Obama domestic policy, having organized attacks on healthcare legislation, judicial appointments and military funding. This has been a horrific miscalculation. The US military has always been close to their Israeli counterparts.
Current funding cuts done under “sequestration” guidelines, forced on the Department of Defense by the opposition party in the US, a combination of Republicans and their extremist wing called the “Tea Party,” are seen as disastrous.
Military leaders, already adjusting to America’s drawdown in Afghanistan, the appearance of defeat, abandoning and destroying equipment, leaving under the shadow of utter failure, see themselves simply walking away in more than just shame.
They blame Israel for undercutting America’s ability to project power and meet what they see as their obligation to act as “policeman of the world.”
Though this policy had proven unsound at the outset, a Bush era delusion, seeing American power crumble, not from military defeat but through political dissension orchestrated by the Israel lobby in Washington, is enraging.
After World War II, America quickly disarmed, later blaming communist influence in government. Similarly, the popular uprising against American involvement in Vietnam led to a similar humiliation, particularly when North Vietnamese troops moved into Saigon, now Ho Chi Minh City, in 1975.
What military planners in America now suspect and are voicing in an increasingly public way is the suspicion that Israel is bent on undermining US influence that it feels is no longer in line with the direction the Likudist regime in Tel Aviv envisions.
This position it shares with Saudi Arabia though Prince Bandar bin Sultan with his vast oil resources is more wary of entangling alliances than his Israeli counterparts and well should be.
Regime change in Saudi Arabia, even under the guise of the “Islamist” could and likely would quickly degenerate into puppet regime powerless as the kingdom’s assets are stripped away.
In fact, this exact scenario is in more than one “playbook,” be it Tel Aviv, London or Beijing.
JUSTICE AND RETRIBUTION
What has been proven threadbare is the system of international justice believed to have been put in place well over a century ago.
The collective international accords, The Hague Conferences of 1899, 1907 and 1929 and the later Geneva Conventions of 1949 have never served as more than a “convenience” for victorious powers to seek justification for acts of aggression.
The problem goes much further than Israel’s settlements on lands seized during the 1967 war, the iconic casus belli for decades of regional acrimony. While there are dozens of underlying long-term conflicts that predate, even by centuries, the 1967 War, nothing on the scale of the aftermath of 9/11, has come under analysis.
Whatever the pretext, be it the crusades of the Middle East or the machinations of the Cold War, there is something unique to the War on Terror, something disingenuous, something conspiratorial, something even theatrical that challenges the basic concepts of justice and even reality itself.
In light of what we have learned of Iran, of Syria, of what “Al Qaeda” may well be as the evidence indicates, a construct of intelligence agencies, players brought together whenever the theatre of “false flag” requires, nothing can be accepted at face value.
Moreover, even 9/11 itself may only have been a milestone in what is a larger journey. On January 26, 2011, Congressman Ron Paul read a cable that originated from the US Embassy in Baghdad into the Congressional Record.
Quoting Ron Paul:
“The document was classified, supposedly to protect national security, yet this information in no way jeopardized our security. Instead, it served to keep the truth from the American people about an event leading up to our initial military involvement in Iraq and the region that continues to today.
The secrecy of the memo was designed to hide the truth from the American people and keep our government from being embarrassed. This was the initial event that had led to so much death and destruction–not to mention the financial costs–these past 20 years.”
The text of the cable, one released by Wikileaks, outlines specifically how the US encouraged Iraq to attack Kuwait back in 1990, an act now obviously part of a broader plan to systematically eliminate regimes capable of challenging US control of the Middle East and Central Asia.
Moreover, in 2007, General Wesley Clark released told of a list he was given after 9/11, seven nations to be destroyed in five years, with Iraq at the top.
There is no shortage of evidence, be it documentary or circumstantial. The evidence is overwhelming. A major culture, a world religion, an entire region of the world targeted, but why?
Were Iraq and Afghanistan destroyed for profit?
Why is there no redress? When no nuclear weapons program is found in Iran, who pays for the destruction and suffering sanctions have caused? Didn’t we see the exact same thing in Iraq, a tissue of lies exposed then forgotten?
Imagine reading a history of this time. Do we simply edit it all out? It would seem so as there is no way to put this period in anything but a fictional context without portraying more than several American and British leaders as modern day Caligulas.
The issues can be simple to understand. The current system of endlessly deferred accountability and redress has made war for profit not only feasible but in accordance with economic theories currently popular, a requirement.
Look on the world as one big corporation. We know many of the directors, perhaps some of the officers and can only guess at the investors. We know the business plan, human suffering for profit. In fact, anyone who tries to apply any other model is doomed to fail.
Gordon Duff, Marine combat veteran of the Vietnam War that has worked on veterans and POW issues for decades and consulted with governments challenged by security issues. He’s a senior editor and chairman of the board of Veterans Today. Especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.
Editing: Jim W. Dean
Short URL: http://www.veteranstoday.com/?p=279779
Posted by Gordon Duff on Dec 3 2013, With 0 Reads, Filed under Editor, World. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. Both comments and pings are currently closed.