Soon the Prime Minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu will get to this Continent intending to peddle his style of thinking among his friends such as the AIPAC crowd, peddle it among those who pretend to be his friends such as the hordes in the American Congress, and peddle it among those who cannot stand him such as everyone else that is enlightened in America. Baring a last minute surprise he may come up with, we already know what he wants and what he will say to get it because he has mouthpieces over here who track him to constantly echo his thinking and spread it among the populace. What they do is sense where the action is going at any given moment and head in that direction like a swarm of bugs eager to fulfill the duty they were programed in advance to carry out.
One of Netanyahu's mouthpieces and perhaps the most consequential of all is the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal whose members made sure to publish articles on Iran's nuclear program, a subject that is Netanyahu's current obsession. The articles were written by the editors themselves, by the Journal columnists and by outside contributors. Without exception, they all carried and supported the Netanyahu line of thinking as well as his logic -- however twisted it may have been. Thus, on February 21, 2012 the Journal published a piece under the title: “Containing Israel on Iran” and the subtitle: “General Dempsey sends a message of U.S. weakness to Teheran.” And on February 27, 2012 they published another editorial under the title: “Wishing Upon Iran” and the subtitle: “U.S. spies hold out hope the mullahs won't build a bomb.”
As indicated by the title, the subject discussed in the February 21 editorial is America's stance on the tension that exists between Iran and Israel. There is no doubt that a few things could be said in this regard and were said. But more importantly, a wealth of information was yielded in the process about a philosophy of international relations that turned out to be so strange, it could only be attributed to an out-of-control mob. In fact, the mob is a swarm of individuals and institutions that act collectively as a mouthpiece for Netanyahu. Theirs is a philosophy that is being injected into America's foreign policy -- stealthily at times and aggressively at other times -- and there is an example of it right here. You will find it encapsulated in one sentence in the middle of the article: “If the U.S. really wanted its diplomacy to work in lieu of force, it would say and do whatever it can to increase Iran's fear of an attack.” Here it is as clear as crystal, the Netanyahu people are inciting America to adopt a foreign policy that is based on spreading fear and terror.
In addition, the swarm is promoting the idea of superpower America establishing a worldwide Pax Americana that will rule the world by pressuring the nations that refuse to toe the line in every way possible. As to the system of governance by which the superpower itself is being managed and will continue to be; it is done by decrees drawn up in the form of opinions put out by institutions like the Journal editorial board and the AIPAC/Likud axis which extends from New York to Tel Aviv. Together, these institutions and the individuals associated with them will continue to be the sources outside the control of the American voters that effectively govern America. Their primary preoccupation is to ascertain that Israel will continue to live comfortably at the expense of the American taxpayers. And this is what makes the swarm look like one of parasites not one of ordinary bugs. It is a swarm endowed with an appetite so insatiable; it has turned Israel into a bottomless pit for American treasure and American blood.
What prompted the Journal to write that editorial was the statement made earlier by General Martin Dempsey, the Chairman of the Joints Chiefs of Staff. This is how they reported what he said: “[He] sent … the wrong message … He said the U.S. is urging Israel not to attack Iran – because Iran hasn't decided to build the bomb … and because it would invite retaliation and be 'destabilizing' throughout the Middle East.” The editors then pushed back against those ideas in this way: “General Dempsey managed to tell the Iranians they can breathe easier because Israel's main ally is opposed to an attack on Iran … the US fears Iran's retaliation … [thus ratifying] Iran's rhetoric that the regime is a fearsome global military threat.”
You cannot fail to see here that the editors envisage the global game of the future as being a never ending struggle between America and someone else. This is not what America's founding fathers had in mind, not what any President has wanted for his country and not what the military wants now or has ever wanted in the past. It is a demonic vision that was brewed entirely inside the collective head of the swarm, portions of which were tried already and proven to be so disastrous for America, it is amazing that the people who still advocate it have the temerity to ask that it be continued, even enlarged.
Looking now at the February 27, 2012 editorial, the writers begin the piece with a question and their answer to it: “What will it take to persuade the US … that Teheran's … intentions aren't … peaceful? … An explosion.” To make it sound like they have something new to add to the discussion, they cite a report that was published a day or two earlier by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Unfortunately for them, the report contains nothing new and so, they abandon it to rehash their old worn out views and those of Netanyahu.
In fact, they say that “America's spooks [which include General Dempsey] see a silver lining: Teheran … has yet to decide to assemble … an explosive [nuclear] device.” There is also this: “Some … sources go even further … they still believe … that Iran put its nuclear weapons-work on the shelf in 2003.” But what the editors of the Journal do not like is that America's spooks “... are drawing a narrow distinction between having the ability to build a nuke and actually building one … the model here is Japan.” And it is at this point that the editors of the Journal start to push back against America's intelligence community, something they do with this opening salvo: “There's a problem with this logic: Japan is not Iran.”
How so? you ask. And you get this answer: “Democratic Tokyo threatens nobody. Theocratic Teheran never ceases making threats.” But remembering the threats that the editors made on behalf of Netanyahu in the February 21 editorial, you realize that they are turning the truth upside down. Still, you resolve not to get excited but try to understand the mentality that powers these characters. To this end, you continue to read what they wrote: “...if the mullahs can readily acquire nuclear weapons, they will instantly change calculations in the Middle East and beyond.” And you begin to see this as a game they enjoy playing. To counter it, you find a way to put their version of the truth right side up again.
You do this by transposing the two words Iran and Israel. Thus, you write down the description of the current situation like this: “Iran threatens nobody. Israel never ceases making threats. Having deliberately adopted a policy of ambiguity, Israel may or may not possess nuclear weapons but it has changed calculations in the Middle East and beyond. This has broadened its strategic and tactical options while complicating those for everyone else, including the United States. And this is why the Middle East remains a powder keg to this day.” Having done this, you feel good about yourself because you know that this view is real and can be verified by inspecting the situation on the ground. By contrast, their view is speculation that cannot be verified unless they provoke it by unleashing terror on the world -- which is what they have been doing up to now and intend to continue doing from all indications.
So this is what the struggle is all about. It was never about an existential threat to Israel since to attack Israel has always meant to attack America, a reality that was proven during the 1973 war when America rescued Israel from being humiliated, not even from being annihilated. And what this means is that Israel shall live as long as America lives. The truth, therefore, is that the artificial tension created in the Middle East has to do with the manhood of adolescents who were yesterday's mamma's boys but are not sure what they are today. They believe they look like studs and are the only studs on the block. They want to keep it that way except that they sense a challenge coming from Iran. They fear they will be unmasked as eunuchs who pretend to be hardened men. Thus, to keep their image intact, they are willing to endanger America's security. But if America were to get hurt, this will endanger Israel's security as well. Thus, it is irrational for them to want something like this and yet, it is what they are aiming for. Go figure.
But having turned reality upside down, they now set out to exploit what they have wrought. Realizing that America cannot maintain the position they advocate without a legal argument to back it, they make one up using the upside down reality they fabricated. Self-defense being the best argument you can make to explain why you want to go after someone, this is what they rely on to build a case in the February 21 editorial: “[The US should] ... say and do whatever it can to increase Iran's fear of an attack. It would say publicly that Israel must be able to protect itself.” As you can see, they say in the same breath that they should terrorize Iran and call that self-defense by Israel. This is crazy but all we can do is shake our heads and ask: How does the world look to you when you stand on your heads, folks? We may also suggest this to them: Try to see things in the right side up position; you might like it better.
But that's not all they do that is irrational. They say that if Iran responds to an Israeli attack -- which would be legitimate self-defense on the part of Iran “...the US would have no choice but to intervene on behalf of its ally.” They go on to admit that to say so is coercion which is an illegal act. So you ask: why would they want America to commit an illegal act? And believe it or not, this is the reason they give: “...to make an adversary understand that the costs of bad behavior will be very, very high.” Whose bad behavior? you ask; the scenario that they imagined themselves is that of Israel attacking, Iran defending itself and America intervening to help Israel. And they call Iran's behavior bad? How can this be viewed by the rest of us except that it is the work of raving lunatics? Like my Jewish friend used to say when he encountered this kind of logic: Light up the oven!
You begin to understand that this is a world you cannot describe metaphorically as being a world of psychopaths because it is a world of authentic psychopaths. What makes these people so dangerous is that they still have the presence of mind to formulate arguments by which to go after the sane people who thankfully have the power to act in these matters. Look what these characters write: “The General [Dempsey] is not a free-lancer, so his message was … guided by the White House.” You ask: What's wrong with that? And they tell you what they believe is wrong: “...Dempsey's comments will … mak[e] war more likely, not less. They will increase Israel's anxiety … if Mr. Obama is re-elected … this may drive Israel … to strike sooner.” Whose fault is that? you ask. They don't tell you in this editorial but they do in the February 27 one.
And what better way is there to get to the bottom of a subject than to go to the neocons and ask them for their opinion? This is how they bring these guys into the debate: “...what about those … spooks whispering that the conclusions of the 2007 NIE are still good? We wonder if they've talked to the famous neocons...” But who are the neocons? you ask. They are the reason why the spooks are reluctant to say what the Netanyahu parasites want to hear. Why the reluctance? Because the neocons admittedly made serious mistakes in the past: “Part of it may be the lingering damage from the WMD mistakes over Iraq.” So then, why would you ask these same people for their opinion? Because “President Obama has misjudged Iran at every turn … Wishful intelligence thinking won't deter Israeli leaders from defending their interests any more than it will stop Iran from obtaining weapons of mass destruction.” That's WMD, by the way as in Iraq's WMD about which the neocons were so wrong.
This is how and why the editors of the Wall Street Journal and their co-parasites conclude that the American government and its military were at fault yesterday, are at fault today and how they continue to make a big mistake. They rebuke the leaders of America for refusing to start a war they must know by now will finish off the superpower the same way that the mighty British empire was terminated by the ill-advised Suez adventure. Still, these parasitic entities want America to go to this length just to make Netanyahu feel he is no longer a mamma's boy but a Middle Eastern stud that can stiff anyone at will then run to hide behind the testicles of Uncle Sam.
Don't play ball with them, Mr. President. Kick them in the ass instead and certainly, keep them away from your rug.