Saudi Arabia oil attack – 9/11 re-run: How to start secret multiple wars in the Middle East part 2

The notion that President Trump is a pragmatist and pacific, rejecting foreign entanglements is a wrong assessment. He is the most pro-Israel President to set foot in the White House and will soon share defense policy with Israel. He has supported Benjamin Netanyahu in annexing the Jordan Valley and north Dead Sea areas in the occupied West Bank; controversially recognised Jerusalem as the capital of Israel; cancelled the JCPOA Iran nuclear deal; and had controversial territory in the Golan Heights named after him, all destroying hopes of peace in The Middle East. A war with Iran is looming, with the U.S. following a covert Likud-neoconservative agenda which is Israel’s foreign policy evident after 9/11.

Those who cannot remember the past are destined to repeat it (George Santayana)

War and globalisation or imperialism and colonialism go hand in hand. Militarization supports the conquest of new economic frontiers and the worldwide imposition of a “free market” system. It was doubtful whether Islam was ever capable of adapting to a globalised society because Islam instinctively opposes globalisation and the secular values it entails. Globalisation is a fragmenting process, eroding the sovereignty of states and fomenting the rebirth of new social, cultural and religious loyalties. Globalisation with its integration of markets, nation-states and technologies enabled individuals, corporations and nation-states to reach around the world farther, faster and cheaper.

No allowance was made for people encountering different ideas, faiths, identities, foods, skin tones, music, sexual practices and languages: the familiar no longer present caused fear. That fear was heightened with the incessant wars and environmental issues. It is unsurprising that mental health issues are on the increase particularly among young people when confronted daily with those fears. It is impossible to imagine the mental anguish of those forced to live, with constant bombardment during war and the grief they experience through the loss of their loved ones. This planet is no longer conducive to spiritual survival – this must change. When men start to murder children then man has reached absolute depravity.

European Union sought to introduce multiculturalism only to see populist right wing parties emerge with an anti-immigrant agenda. People resented the fading of their cultures, which has not gone unnoticed by Eurocrats who on September 10th 2019 nominated a minister with responsibility for defending the homogeneous culture – the “European way of life”. Ursular von der Leyen incoming president of the European commission is to create a new role of vice-president for protecting the European way of life. What supposedly threatens the European way of life is migration, with a responsibility now to control Europe’s borders. In 2001 in the Theatre Earth books, I warned that migration could be covertly used as a political weapon to break up the EU – nobody took note however. Many migrants came from war torn countries, which emerged after 9/11 and no-one could ignore their terrible plight. Wouldn’t you try to save your family from bombs and starvation? We cannot ignore what is happening in the Middle East.

By October 2004 the Bush administration had already identified Syria as the next stage of “the road map to war”. The bombing of presumed ‘terrorist bases’ in Syria by the Israeli Air Force was intended to provide a justification for subsequent preemptive military interventions. Ariel Sharon launched the attacks with the approval of Donald Rumsfeld. The enlargement of the theatre of war was consistent with Ariel Sharon’s plan to build a ‘Greater Israel’ “on the ruins of Palestinian nationalism”.

The U.S. Congress also tightened economic sanctions on Libya and Iran, which in the latter has been repeated by Trump. Barely a few weeks following the entry of the U.S. Marines into Baghdad (2003), the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee gave the OK to the Pentagon to develop a new tactical nuclear bomb, to be used in conventional war theatres, “with a yield (of up to) six times more powerful than the Hiroshima bomb”.

Following the Senate decision, the Pentagon redefined the details of its nuclear agenda in a secret meeting with senior executives from the nuclear industry and the military industrial complex held at Central Command Headquarter at the Offutt Air Force Base in Nebraska. The meeting was held on August 6, the day the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima 58 years ago. The nuclear policy explicitly involved the large defense contractors in decision-making. It was tantamount to the “privatisation” of nuclear war.

victim of the Hiroshima bomb attack. The United States detonated two nuclear weapons over the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki on August 6 and 9, 1945, respectively, with the consent of the United Kingdom, as required by the Quebec Agreement.

Since 9/11 we have seen a number of increasingly dangerous nuclear incidents, where cautionary arms limitation in the past appears to have been replaced by a gun-ho mentality. There are enough psychotics in high places for this to warrant grave concern. Whilst environmental issues are incredibly important, there are serious issues that are being neglected. Nuclear proliferation and arms control is one.

Israel’s repeated firing of white phosphorus shells over densely populated areas of Gaza during a military campaign was indiscriminate and evidence of war crimes, Human Rights Watch said in a report released on the 25th March 2009. The 71-page report, “Rain of Fire: Israel’s Unlawful Use of White Phosphorus in Gaza,” provided witness accounts of the devastating effects that white phosphorus munitions had on civilians and civilian property in Gaza. White phosphorus was used by Saddam Hussein during the Halabja poison gas attack. The United States was also accused of using white phosphorous in the Iraq War.

White phosphorous injuries in Gaza (Palestinians)

There was no firm evidence of the use of mini-nukes in the Iraqi and Afghan wars, but tests conducted by Canada’s Uranium Medical Research Centre (UMRC), in Afghanistan confirm that recorded toxic radiation was not attributable to ‘heavy metal’ depleted uranium ammunition (DU), but to another unidentified form of uranium contamination. We thought we would never see pictures again like the child running naked with napalm burns, in the Vietnam war.This is another concern – violations of international law with no consistent punishment for war crimes.

Traumatised child in the Vietnam war

9/11 saw a dangerous turning point for America where General Franks, who led the military campaign into Iraq, pointed out in October 2003 the role of a “massive casualty-producing event” was to muster support for the imposition of military rule in America. The globalists have long sought to overcome the American Constitution. Franks stated: “a terrorist, massive, casualty-producing event (will occur) somewhere in the Western world – it may be in the United States of America – that causes our population to question our own Constitution and begin to militarize our country in order to avoid a repeat of another mass casualty-producing event”. Given this was after 9/11 then it appears another event is in the pipeline. Franks quite clearly indicates the “war on terrorism” is to provide a justification for repealing the Rule of Law – the very foundation of civilised society. Further he appears to be suggesting that a terrorist attack could be used as a “trigger mechanism” for a military coup d’état in America, by declaring a state of emergency, leading to the establishment of a military government.

It is questionable whether the neoconservatives and globalists gave up the cause along with Israel, but on viewing current events and the Saudi oil field attack it is doubtful. To justify preemptive military actions, the National Security Doctrine required “fabrication” of a terrorist threat or an “outside enemy”. It also needed to link the terrorist threats and incidents to “State sponsorship”. Al Qaeda was the “fabricated” enemy for a war in Iraq. Just so the fake history sticks in the public mind, they made a Hollywood movie out of Bin Laden’s capture.

We also saw in the lead up to the Iraq war how evidence is fabricated in order to justify preemptive strike. A series of leaked memos/documents in Britain revealed this strategy of fabricated evidence, justifying the war with Iraq. A memorandum of minutes of a meeting between Britain’s top national security officials and Prime Minister Blair on July 23, 2002, eight months before the invasion of Iraq was leaked. A briefing given by Richard Dearlove, then director of Britain’s MI-6 (a CIA equivalent) after a visit to Washington DC, reported that the Bush administration planned to start a preemptive war against Iraq. Dearlove pointed out: “But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy”. Jack Straw then Foreign Secretary claimed: “the case was thin…” : the fact that Blair did not act on this and refuse to back Bush in a war with Iraq, is damning.

The Bush Blair coalition in the Iraq war, where later Blair would be accused of lying to the British people

It’s hard to understand how Blair became a peace envoy to the Middle East in 2007. He stepped down in 2015 as special representative of the Quartet of international powers seeking a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians, after making little headway for nearly eight years and amid near-constant controversy about his role. “He never once dared to speak out. He was all too comfortable with a status quo that was unsustainable” commented Chris Doyle, from the Council for Arab- British Understanding.

Another memorandum dated July 21, 2002 to the Prime Minister’s cabinet discussed how to justify the Iraq war and reveals that Tony Blair agreed to support the Iraq War in a discussion with President Bush in Crawford, Texas in April (2002). The issue of legality arose where: it “is necessary to create the conditions in which we could legally support military action.”

A memorandum from then British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw to Prime Minister Blair dated March 25, 2002 was a preparation for Blair’s visit to Crawford. Whilst pointing out the challenge in getting parliament to agree to a war he stated: “…there has been no credible evidence to link Iraq with UBL and Al Qaeda…” He further commented: “A legal justification is a necessary but far from sufficient precondition for military action. We have also to answer the big question – what will this action achieve”? Well obviously if Straw had half a brain, it was Israeli foreign policy. One wonders how much incompetence is needed to qualify a person for a top government job – Foreign Secretary.

In a memorandum written by Blair’s political director Peter Ricketts dated March 22, 2002 he noted that “…U.S. scrambling to establish a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda is so far frankly unconvincing…” Surely MI-6 must have informed the government that Al Qaeda was a CIA intelligence asset! Ricketts unbelievably (given his job title) said: “It sounds like a grudge between Bush and Saddam.” You really couldn’t make it up!

Even more astonishing is the memorandum from then British Ambassador to the U.S., Christopher Meyer, dated March 18, 2002 in which he discussed a conversation with Paul Wolfowitz. He told Wolfowitz that a war with Iraq would be a difficult sell in Britain, and more difficult in Europe, and “went through the need to wrong-foot Saddam on the inspectors and the UN SCRs (Security Council Resolutions). This implies they were going to set Saddam up for failure to justify a war.

A memo to Blair dated March 12, 2002 from British foreign policy adviser, David Manning, failed to mention Israel and finally a legal options memo some eight pages long looked at the alternative legal justifications for war, Security Council resolutions, self-defense and humanitarian intervention (sic) finding all lacking as justification. The invasion of Iraq was illegal under international law so they tried to create legal justification through manipulation of the United Nations in order to trap Saddam into violating U.N. resolutions. Finally the “sexed up” dossier was produced with the controversial claim that Saddam Hussein could launch weapons of mass destruction within 45 minutes.

The “dodgy dossier” that “sexed up” the threat from Saddam Hussein to persuade Parliament and the British public that a war was necessary with Iraq

Even more astonishing or probably not given ownership of the media, there was virtual silence about the whole of this background and that silence continues, so a charade can be played out on every anniversary of 9/11. It reminds one of the millions who have died of cancer and the refusal to even consider the alternative theory for cancer your author developed 30 years ago. There are truly lost if not degraded souls on this planet, As the Mary Magdalene pointed out “there will be no peace on this planet, until the cut is healed.”  

A 2002 classified brief drafted to guide the Pentagon called “for the creation of a so-called ‘Proactive, Preemptive Operations Group’ (P2OG), to launch secret operations aimed a “stimulating reactions” among terrorists and states possessing weapons of mass destruction – that is, for instance, prodding terrorist cells into action and exposing themselves to ‘quick-response’ attacks by U.S. forces. The P2OG is not new; this strategy already exists in covert operations. The danger is such actions can be used to fabricate an enemy, in order to create conflict. It should be asked whether Netanyahu’s vow to annex the Jordan Valley, part of the occupied West Bank, should he be re-elected is just such a strategy. Indeed was 9/11 and the Saudi oil refinery attack incidents for “stimulating reactions”.

The Secret History of European Union (2 vols) outlined various strategies used by Power to gain “control, authority and influence”. “Create a problem and pretend to solve it”, is one. Another method is “engrenage”- “gearing.” Secret groups work in long cycles and often events over such long periods are not connected. It is 18 years since 9/11 and less we forget this history stated here in two parts is a reminder.

Two people who used to get along are quarreling and you believe those two have a dispute. Actually no, there is always a third hidden group or individual who is causative of the dispute. A recognizable instance would be a married couple, where one person has an affair. The third party is then the co-respondent in any divorce. It is not so easy to spot the third party when there are lots of organisations and actors in war or revolution surrounded by secrecy. Freemasonry was the third party in the French Revolution, capitalist influence was the causation of the Russian Revolution, the Jews were the causation of the British Revolution and the Rosicrucian’s were involved with the American Revolution.

 If one looks at the Iraq war, it was made possible by the neoconservatives – but who was behind them? Few apart from the politically aware will have heard of Leo Strauss (1899-1973), a German Jewish émigré who taught at the University of Chicago.

Leo Strauss

Strauss did not dissent from Marx’s view that religion is the opiate of the people, but believed the people needed an opiate. He taught therefore those in power must invent “noble lies” and “pious frauds” to keep the masses comatose to the plans of the elite. This strategy was used to form European Union (Secret History of European Union vol 1). Strauss at the age of 17 became a devoted advocate of political Zionism. He also curiously obtained a fellowship from the Rockefeller Foundation in 1932 in order to work in France. The following year he received an extension of his Rockefeller grant to work in London and Cambridge – hot spots for elite recruitment.

Strauss believed that knowledge belonged to a few – a “closed club” view of knowledge and debate usually the latter being conducted in “nocturnal clubs” well away from democratic institutions. This almost certainly reveals him as a member of a secret society. A liberal democracy embraces the Rule of Law, and the notion that no-one King or Executive, stands above the Law, was rejected by Strauss, just as Nietzsche viewed Christianity as a slave morality designed to imprison genius with conscience. Strauss believed law was a trick of the weak to tie down the strong.

Strauss supported the decisive leader who acted outside of the law, to achieve his goals. Strauss was the originating philosophy of the neocons and evidently passed on this disregard for the law to his devotees. This philosophy has taken hold in society and indeed I have witnessed it first-hand in the UK courts and the European Court (Cox Letter). Strauss was able through the Rockefeller fellowship to focus on Greek philosophers principally Plato, Xenophon and Thucyclides. The tiered Platonic State with elite at the top is certainly comparable to the political model of European Union (Blog: ‘The Dangerous Political Model of the EU’). It is a model in American politics and a model that was being developed in the globalist plan, with David Rockefeller as a proponent if not founder along with men like Brzezinski.

It is no surprise that Strauss agreed with Plato and the ideal State as Kallipolis (Καλλίπολις), a city-state ruled by a philosopher king. Your authors books center round a secret fraternity who supported this mode of governance dating back to the sun-kings of Greece. Unfortunately as your author has pointed out, they (Late Minoans) stole the Mysteries of the Woman and misunderstood them, but took over her plan of a matriarchal spiritual World State replacing it with one of patriarchal power and wealth. Incidentally if those initiates who work for a World Order have been told that their heart when buried on Zion, will assure them of immortality – then sorry to say they have been duped and they evidently did not get the final secret of the Woman (Secret History of European Union vol. 2, p.444).

The elite as pagan gods not concerned with the happiness of mere mortals, with little pity or compassion for them; and where wars are festivals. This is the philosophy and mentality infused into the neocon elite. Strauss as an atheist rejected religion and thought that man could only achieve moral purpose through devotion to their nation, willing to sacrifice their lives for it. How convenient that this philosophy should be drilled into the neocons, given their mission of war on multiple fronts.

Rabid nationalism, a militant society and war was Strauss medicine for a society threatened internally by laziness, decadence and pleasure. A militant nationalism was also he thought the best way to remove external threats. When Strauss was developing these dangerous ideas in the 30s Hitler, surrounded by secret group initiates was taking up an almost identical philosophy (The Secret History of European Union vol.1). Curious too that Rockefeller had contact with the rocket scientist Jack Parsons in the same time frame (Blog: Operation Paperclip).

There is some indication that Strauss was probably a member of a secret society quite possibly given his philosophy – the Illuminati. Strauss was a contemporary of Gotthold Ephraim Lessing who strongly supported emancipation of the Jews. Strauss suggested that Lessing whilst once rejecting religion had come back to it, understanding its proper role in society as a tool for those who govern. This may well have been the strategy behind the manipulation of George W. Bush the born again Christian.

Strauss re-interpreted a less well known but nevertheless important Lessing work – Ernst und Falk: Gesprӓche fϋr Freimauer (1781), known as the “Masonic Dialogues” in which Lessing quotes Benjamin Franklin and hails the American Revolution and the values it announced as the beginning of a new era for politics premised on reason and tolerance. Given the American Revolution was the secret work of the Rosicrucians, who placed science and reason as high attributes, it seems Lessing’s preference for reason over faith indicates he may well have been a Rosicrucian.

A conversation between Ernst (Lessing) and a Dr Falk (“king of the Jews”- The Secret History of European Union vol.1) revealed the desired political model. Falk pointed to an ant-heap at the foot of a tree: “why” he asks “should not human beings exist without government like ants or bees?” Falk then went on to describe his ideas of a Universal State, or rather a “Federation of States”, rather like European Union (or America although built on different premises) which fomented as an actionable plan starting with the French revolution in the “nocturnal clubs” of the Masonic Lodges (Theatre Earth vol.1, p. 105). Falk believed under the beehive political model men would no longer be divided by national, social or religious prejudices and where greater equality would exist. The European Union is currently addressing the fault in the Masonic model with its rush now to protect the “European way of life.”

Globalisation was always a ridiculous plan as was communism, since in large groups, viewpoints and many other things differ. A common social, cultural and religious adherence might work in small groups, but in larger groups, it can only be brought about by force and so globalisation or communism goes hand in hand with war and a police State – witness the recent events in Hong Kong.

Police in conflict with Hong Kong activists fighting for the right to self-determination

The beehive was also a ridiculous model, since the beehive consists of workers, infertile females who collect pollen for the young and male drones who do nothing. A drone’s primary role is to mate with an unfertilized queen. Well that fits! Strauss found sanctuary with ancient Greek philosophers like Plato, who was in fact a great sexist, because they agreed with his view of the best system of government – a form of elitist communism: the state being run by a philosopher king, or today a group of initiates who fancy themselves as high philosophers, deciding world affairs in their “nocturnal clubs” or through groups like the Bilderberg, Trilateral Commission or Council of Foreign Relations etc., when issues should be open and transparent in parliaments.The elite would keep the classes in their correct place in a type of rigid Parmenidean immobility. The authoritarian state with a strong military tradition is what America became under such influences.

Strauss infected the Neocons with his disregard for the law by elite. He even embraced the concept of the philosopher tyrant “who has committed any number of crimes.” Atheism particularly breeds contempt for law. Strauss believed the masses didn’t warrant truth or liberty and equality, where the natural condition is subordination. The requirement for subordination is a feature of Freemasonry (Blog: Britain: elitism, plutocracy and fake history): and all the top degrees in Freemasonry are Judaic. We come full circle to the proposed membership of Strauss to the Illuminati – a revolutionary branch of Freemasonry from earliest times.

Strauss system then along with the neocons was built on “noble lies” and “pious fraud” where justice is merely the interest of the stronger, where those in power make the rules in their own interests and call it justice and the rule of the wise. Former Wall street Journal editor Max Boot conceded that a passionate attachment to Israel is a “key tenet of neo-conservatism”. In February 2003 a front-page article in the Washington Post declared Ariel Sharon’s Likud Party as in control of American foreign policy: “The Likudniks are really in charge now.”

Mr Trump made his historic 20 steps across the demilitarized zone into North Korea for his meeting with Kim Jong-un and the world believed this was a pragmatic president intent on avoiding war, but is that the case? John Bolton, Trump’s national security adviser was recently sacked and it might have appeared that the remains of hawkish neoconservatism had been removed from the White House. The unexpectedly pacific Trump however has shown himself to be the most Israel friendly president in recent times, supporting controversial moves by Israel in the occupied territories; and there is evidence that the neoconservatives are back.

Two years ago, as Donald Trump ascended to the presidency; you might have thought that, if nothing else, neoconservatives had finally been rejected. In the campaign, Trump had damned the neocons’ signature policy, the war in Iraq, as a “big fat mistake,” and repudiated their ostensible program of turning nations into liberal democracies. His election victory appeared to deal a double blow to the neoconservatives. Today however neoconservatives are evident, on Capitol Hill, in the most prominent organs of opinion. Trump is acting as many neocons have long sought, positioning the United States against a hostile world and focusing on the threat of brute force in response – isn’t this the psychology of Israel? With the attack in Saudi Arabia, threat has turned to potential action.

A new configuration of right-wing foreign policy is coming into view; neoconservatives have positioned themselves against not only totalitarian powers but also global institutions and interests’, claiming it threatens sovereignty. “World government is a terrible idea” was how Irving Kristol, the father of Bill and so-called godfather of neoconservatism, defined a core neocon belief in 2003. But what of American imperialism?

During Trump’s presidential campaign, commentators heard him denounce globalism and concluded that his “America First” foreign policy would spell a retreat from US global leadership. Since World War II, right-wing non-interventionists—sometimes called paleocons—have attacked “globalism” in order to argue that far-flung wars serve the interests of others, but not those of Americans. The American electorate were exhausted by these wars – Vietnam, Iraq and then Afghanistan and Syria and warmed to Trump’s perceived pacifist view.

Commentators missed, however, that globalism, or something close – if not Pax-Iraelica and Pax-Americana, is also a target of neocon interventionists. Whereas most neocons have trained their rhetoric on hostile regimes first, and global institutions second, Bolton flipped those priorities, making his career by railing against globalism and the un-American Americans who bow before it. “If I were redoing the Security Council today,” Bolton said in 2000, “I’d have one permanent member [the United States], because that’s the real reflection of the distribution of power in the world.” Bolton implored the country to wake up to the danger that leftists like Obama were attempting to give away American sovereignty, bit by bit, to international bodies. Trump has turned out most of Obama’s policies. Whilst I agree that many global institutions have very dubious credentials with dubious links, I can’t think that Pax-Americana is the solution. or even Pax-Israelica or Pax-Britannia. I do think all nations must take a very mature look at the world and solve the problems humanity faces with honesty, integrity, openess and most of all compassion towards one’s fellow man. How on earth can sanctions which starve people be any answer?

Trumps support for sovereignty, raises the question of Britain’s referendum and Brexit, which Trump has publicly supported. The argument against continued membership of the European Union rested upon loss of sovereignty. However the involvement of Cambridge Analytica and the whole interconnecting web that surrounded Trump’s election, Nigel Farage, Aaron Banks, the Mercer patronage, Bannon, Brittany Kaiser etc. (Blog: ‘Power and its protection by secrecy’), brings into question of where ultimately Brexit is headed if not to some Pax-Britannia, Pax-Americana and Pax-Israelica? I certainly do not think on the basis of evidence in my books, that can be the answer even if it is sought as an answer to some ancient religious prophesy, which at any rate is built on a misunderstanding, through the theft of the Woman’s Mysteries.

For Bolton and neocons, Donald Trump turned out to be a gift. Trump elevated “globalism” from a marginal insult to the central plank of American foreign policy and Republican politics. “Americanism, not globalism, will be our credo,” Trump declared on capturing the nomination. “America First” meant white nationalism, Christian traditionalism, and western civilization.

Trump claimed in his campaign that America was a “Third World country” exploited by cunning foreigners and enabled by domestic collaborators. Already fallen, America had to be made great again. Positioning the United States behind the rest, Trump portrayed America as a humiliated, subjugated dupe—and gave a new, more dynamic rationale to a stale neocon agenda. Unleash American power, Trump promised, to take back what others had stolen. Turn the tables on a “vicious” world by being more vicious than the rest. “As far as I’m concerned,” the president said, “we have to fight fire with fire.” This kind of rhetoric was used by the fascist Hitler, when rallying the German people to war, using the indignity of the Versailles Treaty to inflame them. The rhetoric certainly had a neocon ring about it.

Like the Germans after World War I, there were legitimate issues. Trump had a point over trade deals and unfair defense spending however his statements were not a vision of restraint and withdrawal—or “isolationism”. Trump wants to take things from the world and assert America’s dominance over it. In the name of opposing globalism, Trump has upheld one pillar after another of the neocon policy agenda.

Trump is building up America’s military forces and hardware which was a PANAC neocon goal, to the tune of $750 billion for 2019. He is confronting a number of adversaries from North Korea, Venezuela to Iran to China. He has escalated military engagements in parts of Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and Africa, without leaving a single of the nation’s dozens of formal security obligations around the world. He has released the United States from multilateral arrangements like the Paris Climate Agreement, UNESCO, and the UN Human Rights Council, and is exiting the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty with Russia. He also reneged on the Iran nuclear deal. He has steadfastly supported the right-wing government of Israel, moving the US embassy to Jerusalem and slashing aid to the UN agency for Palestinian refugees, apart from supporting Netanyahu in claiming controversial occupied territory.

Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu has unveiled a new settlement in the occupied Golan Heights, named after US President Donald Trump. At a naming ceremony on Sunday (15.09. 2019), Mr Netanyahu said Trump Heights honoured Mr Trump for his decision to recognise Israeli sovereignty over the territory. Building work has yet to begin but a sign bearing Mr Trump’s name and US and Israeli flags were unveiled. Critics called the move a publicity stunt with no legal authority.

The controversial Golan Heights proposed settlement named after Donald Trump

Israel seized the Golan from Syria in the 1967 Middle East war. In March, the US became the first country to recognise Israeli sovereignty over the area since Israel effectively annexed it in 1981. This contravened international law. The move was not recognised internationally, although the US Trump Administration did so unilaterally in March 2019.

On December 6, 2017, Donald Trump controversially announced the United States recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and ordered the planning of the relocation of the U.S. Embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. Benjamin Netanyahu, the Prime Minister of Israel, welcomed the decision and praised the announcement. Netanyahu’s former justice minister and Yamina leader claimed (14.09.2019) Trump’s peace plan between the Palestinians and Israelis would see East Jerusalem neighborhoods falling under Palestinian jurisdiction. She added, “I want to be part of a government that watches over Netanyahu – that makes sure that this doesn’t happen.”

Netanyahu the emboldened Israeli prime minister, despite claims of fraud and possible court action, through Trump’s support has allowed him to take, in some cases, unprecedented expansionist steps in the Palestinian territories. Days before the Israeli general election on Tuesday (17.09. 2019), Mr Netanyahu made an explosive announcement that he would annex the Jordan Valley and north Dead Sea area in the occupied West Bank immediately after being re-elected. While not the first time he has mentioned annexation, he set a time frame, provided a detailed map of what would be carved up and hinted that Mr Trump would support the move, despite it being illegal under international law and sure to fan the flames of conflict in the region. There is no indication that any future prime minister in Israel would not support this policy.

Netanyahu’s presentation of his proposed annexation of the Jordan Valley and north Dead Sea area in the occupied West Bank immediately after being re-elected

Trump appeared to be against foreign entanglements in his “America First” mantra. His efforts to pull US forces from Syria last year, his reluctance to retaliate against Iran over the shooting down of a drone all appear to demonstrate a conciliatory president. His planned secret talks with the Taliban at Camp David, which he allegedly was forced to cancel after a Kabul bombing – how convenient.

Trump’s reported proposed talks with Iran also appeared to illustrate a pacific president. The attack on the world’s largest oil processing plant early Saturday morning (14.09.2019) is a dramatic escalation in the confrontation between Iran and Saudi Arabia — even if the Iranians didn’t fire the drones or missiles responsible. Several projectiles struck the Abqaiq plant, starting a series of fires that quickly took out nearly half Saudi’s oil production — 5% of the global daily output — and sparking fears about the security of the world’s oil supplies. Trump in a tweet which was a disgrace stated: “…we are locked and loaded…” in a reference to Iran: and men like this have charge over nuclear weapons!

Drone and missile attacks in Saudi Arabia

The attack was claimed by Yemen’s Houthi rebels. The US secretary of state Mike Pompeo claimed immediately and without evidence that Iran was responsible for the attack on the Saudi oilfields and which dampens any likelihood that Donald Trump will countenance a meeting with Tehran in the near future or press ahead with tentative peace talks with Houthi rebels in Oman – how convenient.

Lindsey Graham, one of Trump’s foreign policy supporters in the Senate, was clear talks with Iran are now off the agenda saying: “The Iranian regime is not interested in peace – they’re pursuing nuclear weapons and regional dominance.” Gosh this sounds familiar haven’t we seen this scene before following the 9/11 attacks. For the moment Europe is not attributing blame. Britain in its statement condemning the attack did not explicitly blame Iran, but called on the Houthis to desist. Well let’s hope we don’t get any more dodgy dossiers on Iran, which justify war as they did in Iraq, but it is ominously claimed the U.S. is working to produce the evidence. Gosh we have seen that before!

Iran’s foreign ministry on Sunday (15.09.2019) dismissed as “meaningless” US accusations it was behind drone attacks on Saudi oil installations, suggesting they were a pretext to retaliate against the Islamic republic: “Such fruitless and blind accusations and remarks are incomprehensible and meaningless,” ministry spokesman Abbas Mousavi was quoted as saying in a statement. The allegations over Saturday’s strikes were meant to justify “future actions” against Iran, he added. This is reminiscent of PNAC’s “war pretext incident.” The drone attack in Saudi Arabia begins to look more like covert operations. Why would Iran bomb Saudi oil fields, when they will not benefit – Qui bono? – who benefits.

Returning to Bush’s “axis of evil” and his 2002 State of the Union Address, where Bush called North Korea “A regime arming with missiles and weapons of mass destruction, while starving its citizens.” He also stated Iran “aggressively pursues these weapons and exports terror, while an un-elected few repress the Iranian people’s hope for freedom.” Of the three nations Bush cited, however, he gave the most criticism to Iraq. He stated “Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and to support terror….. This is a regime that has something to hide from the civilized world.” Well as it turned out no-one could find the hidden weapons, but thousands of people including children in Iraq died or were maimed for life in the process.

Donald Trump said on Saturday (14.09. 2019) he had spoken with Benjamin Netanyahu about a possible mutual defense treaty between the two nations, a move that could bolster the Israeli prime minister’s re-election bid days before voters go to the polls: “I had a call today with Prime Minister Netanyahu to discuss the possibility of moving forward with a Mutual Defense Treaty, between the United States and Israel, that would further anchor the tremendous alliance between our two countries,” Trump said on Twitter. He added that he looked forward to continuing discussions later in month, on the side-lines of the United Nations General Assembly session in New York, despite the fact it is not known if Netanyahu will win the election, and in fact as I write this Netanyahu’s Likud party must form a coalition, when he did not receive an outright majority.

Many Israelis are opposed to Netanyahu’s government. Avigdor Lieberman has accused Netanyahu of “surrendering to terror, surrendering to the ultra-orthodox……”, also mocking Netanyahu’s vow to annex the Jordan Valley, part of the occupied West Bank. The ultra-orthodox however follow the Judaic-Zionist expansionist doctrine which is to seize all the oil-rich lands from the shores of the Euphrates to the banks of the Nile, according to the biblical dictate of Abraham. Mr Lieberman’s party – Yisrael Beiteinu is a secular right-wing party which has promised not to join a government in which the religious parties will have disproportionate influence. One wishes him well, if it brings peace to the Middle East and saves children.

What does a common defense policy between Israel and the U.S mean, other than if either are attacked they can retaliate and no doubt as both countries have extensive nuclear arsenals, any war would be nuclear, presumably the first strike will be the Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant in Iran. Trump and Israel may well start a nuclear world war. Neither can one dismiss that comment in the secret groups by a very high initiate who spoke of “America’s peculiar purpose” (The Secret History of the European Union vol 2).

Iran has accused the US of “maximum deceit.” The question is whether Trump was following the Straussian neocon strategy of the “Noble lie” and “pious fraud” when portraying himself as a “pragmatist” and pacifist avoiding foreign entanglements, words that do not appear to tally with the outcome of his actions. In July 2015, an agreement was concluded with Iran, China, France, Germany, Russia, the United Kingdom, the United States and the European Union. It provided that Iran’s nuclear activities would be limited in exchange for reduced sanctions. Trump pulled out of the deal and increased sanctions, claiming the deal had been broken. Some reports suggest that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s “Iran Lied” presentation influenced the withdrawal. A little more than a week after Netanyahu’s presentation, Trump announced that the U.S. would withdraw from the deal. He announced the withdrawal during a speech at the White House on May 8, 2018, saying, “the heart of the Iran deal was a giant fiction: that a murderous regime desired only a peaceful nuclear energy program.” This may or may not be true – but where is the evidence?

According to Trump’s Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and the International Atomic Energy Agency, the agency tasked with verifying and monitoring Iran’s compliance with the JCPOA (The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action or Iran nuclear deal); it was reported contrary to Israel’s claim that Iran had been in compliance with the JCPOA and there was no evidence otherwise. According to David Makovsky, a Middle East scholar at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, Iran was not in compliance, because under the deal’s terms Iran was supposed to reveal all of its research into nuclear weapons, and that based on Netanyahu’s evidence, “it seems clear that they did not.”  This was the case in Iraq where inspectors found no evidence of WMD, whilst “sexed up” reports appeared in contradiction. The leaked British memos certainly indicate that Saddam was being set up to fail. Netanyahu was not un-bias and yet no independent verification of his claims appeared.

What is happening in the Middle East today appears to be a continuation of the Gulf War (2 Aug 1990 – 28 Feb 1991) and furtherance of Israeli foreign policy backed by the pro-Israeli US president complying with neocon policies who has no qualms about starting wars as he said “…we are locked and loaded.”  As with 9/11 the size and sophistication of the Saudi oil refinery attack pointed to more than a handful of terrorists; and as with 9/11 the accusations soon turned to “axis of evil”- state sponsored terrorism. As with 9/11 the Saudi attack seems to have eluded the regions most advanced air warning systems. As with 9/11 there was a high degree of accuracy in hitting the two targets one at Abqaiq and the other at Khurais, both hit virtually simultaneously which requires a high degree of planning and co-ordination. This tends to indicate that although the Houthi rebels have claimed responsibility, another hidden source was behind the attack. The oil holding tanks showed pinprick accurate holes made in the domes, where curiously the holes seem disproportionately small, for the huge plumes of smoke and flames observed following the attack.

The Houthi rebel movement a shia militia are fighting the official government of Yemen and are in control of the capital. Saudi Arabia and its allies including the U.S. stepped in to support the government in 2015, but it has created a humanitarian crisis in the country, where millions are at risk of starvation and disease: again it is the children who as the most vulnerable are dying in multitudes.

Iran’s President Rouhani maintained (16.09. 2019) that the strikes were a response by “Yemen’s people” to assaults on their country: “Yemeni people are exercising their legitimate right of defense…the attacks were a reciprocal response to aggression against Yemen for years.” However before any evidence could be produced, paralleling the 9/11 attacks the accusations transferred from the Houthi rebels, to Iran and the old accusation of “State terrorism.”

Without any evidence other than on the basis of trajectory of the missiles, U.S. officials assured Iraq that their territory had not been used to stage the attacks, leaving Iran.  There are several theories your author could put forward for the attacks:

1. The attacks were carried out by hardliner’s in Iran’s Revolutionary Guard to sabotage any rapprochement with the U.S. and must have been sanctioned by the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei who oversees all issues with the U.S.

2. The attacks were caused by Iran’s attempt to sabotage the Saudi oil business, disrupting the float of Aramco jeopardizing global trade. The political future of Mohamed bin Salman, the Saudi Crown Prince and effective ruler, hinges to a large degree on a successful flotation of the Kingdom’s gigantic oil company Aramco. A primary listing on Saudi Arabia’s domestic stock exchange was imminently expected, with a further offering on an international exchange. This major financial event was key to the prince’s planned social modernisation of the Kingdom. Tehran could have sought to derail the plans. Tehran has allies in Turkey and Russia and it is conceivable that this was a plan to derail Pax-Americana, particularly as Russia stepped into Syria. Putin is a wily strategist and one cannot dismiss his potential involvement.

3. The attack was a secret operations plan to further the policy of Pax-Israelica and Pax-Americana, where as in 9/11 the event became justification for preemptive strike per neocon PNAC doctrine. Trump in outwardly displaying a conciliatory foreign policy knowingly or unknowingly engaged in the neocon strategy of “noble lies” and “pious fraud” to conceal a foreign policy that encompasses Israeli foreign policy. His words and actions seemingly contradictory reflect the neocon “road map to war”.

As in 9/11 without evidence Trump’s team were already briefing UN representatives. Lindsey Graham tweeted: “Iran will not stop their misbehavior until the consequences become more real like attacking their refineries, which will break the regimes back.” It is not the refineries but the nuclear plant in Iran that is sought for demolition. Kelly Craft U.S. ambassador to the United Nations told the Security Council that: “the emerging evidence indicates that responsibility lies with Iran.” Gosh that sounds familiar.

Prince Khalid bin Salman the Saudi defense minister, on a visit to Washington at the end of August (2019), told senior leaders at the State Defense Department and the CIA that whilst they supported economic sanctions against Iran they did not support going to war. Trump immediately after the Saudi attack not only jumped in with inflammatory rhetoric pushing Saudi Arabia into conflict, exacerbating Riyadh’s dilemma, he also even offered to pay for the retaliation: “…I know that monetarily we’ll be very much involved in paying for that.” One supposes like his “locked and loaded” gaffe following on from “cocked and loaded” in June (2019) someone on Capitol Hill will be wheeled out to say “it never happened, you misunderstood, its fake news.”

Saudi Arabia was on the original neocon list of rogue states after 9/11, allegedly sponsoring terrorism. Amal Ahmad Khashoggi a Saudi Arabian dissident, author, columnist for The Washington Post, and a general manager and editor-in-chief of Al-Arab News Channel was assassinated at the Saudi embassy in Istanbul Turkey in 2018. Saudi Arabia is desperate for the impact of the crime to fade and for the kingdom to escape the pariah status it has earned in the eyes of many across the world. Why would they not fall in with Trump and the U.S.?

For a President who claimed “America First” he has stuck his tweets into many country’s politics. Trump was careful to play down the U.S. national security interest in the Gulf, pointing to the fact that the U.S. has become the world’s biggest energy producer: “we don’t need Middle Eastern oil and gas and in fact have very few tankers there, but we will help our Allies!” Did he mean Saudi Arabia, or Israel? After 9/11 accusations emerged that oil interests and American imperialists looked upon the war as a way to incorporate oil-rich Central Asia within the American imperial orbit. The primary policy makers in the Bush administration were the Ludnik neoconservatives where however control of Central Asia was secondary to the Middle East. It was not the oil companies that clamored for war, since war causes chaos to business, investments and the market.

Regime change, placing a non-representative dictatorship in power in a defeated country, is the aim and where it would lead to pro-American and pro-Israeli policies. Strategy to achieve this changed from containment to pre-emptive strike.

The religious goal covered in the author’s books is by far the most secretive goal of a highly secret group, who exhibit apocalyptic psychology and will create a nuclear war, if not revealed.

The world becomes obscene, when we are forced to view millions of children maimed, killed or starved. I can honestly say it has grieved my spirit to its depths to have witnessed what man is capable of.

Afghanistan child war victim

Afghanistan child war victim
Baby victim in Iraq war
Starving child in the Yemen
Syrian child victim of war and starvation

Follow by Email
RSS