Imagine the unimaginable and weep for America

Imagine a family that came from an upscale environment to settle in a far-flung and rugged landscape. The members work hard as well as intelligently to improve the conditions of life in their new homestead.

 

They do such a marvelous job, other families are attracted to the place, and work just as hard, thus succeed at turning the homestead into an advanced metropolis that eclipses everything on the planet. Members of the founding family grow so confident in their ability to stand up to the challenges that may confront them in the future, they neglect to put down the protocol that will help them do just that.

 

The future arrives and brings with it a new homesteader; one of the most devious characters you’ll find on Planet Earth. He begs the founding family to take him in for a short period of time till he gets organized and able to look after himself. Motivated by pity, the family takes him in and gives him accommodations, rights and privileges he never dreamed of previously despite living a long life of hustling.

 

The truth about this character is that he is the successive reincarnation of all the demonic characters that existed since the beginning of time. Smooth talking like a Cicero, hypnotic like a Svengali and imposing like a Hitler, he pitted the members of the family that took him in against each other while establishing a direct and personal connection separately with each member. The family became dysfunctional when dealing with each other, but he managed to create a “multi-partisan” bloc that gave him absolute control over all aspects of the family estate.

 

So, what do you think, my friend? Do you believe this is a fairy tale (surely a bad fairy) that is so far-fetched, it could make a B movie but nothing more? Well, let me tell you something: this is a real-life drama in which the homestead is America. As to the continuously reincarnating demon, it is the Jewish establishment whose converts to the Judeo-Yiddish ideology, refer to themselves by the deceptive name: Jews. They infiltrated America some time ago, and took control of it lock, stock and barrel.

 

The reason why we are beginning to talk about this horrific situation now, is that the offspring of the founding family woke up from their deep sleep, and saw a spectacle that was so disgusting repeat itself interminably, they felt they will die of shame if they did not rectify it. They started to work on a plan to do so, thus caused the reincarnated demon to respond.

 

The name adopted by the demon at this time, is Jackson Richman. He wrote an angry response in relation to the moves that were undertaken by the children of America. His response came in the form of an article written under the title: “Israel should reject a reopened US Consulate in Jerusalem,” and was published on October 30, 2021 in The Washington Examiner.

 

What’s the story there? Well, it happened that before America had awakened from its sleep, the demonic character started working on a project called Israel. It was supposed to be just a shack to which he could run when things got so rough, he needed a refuge in which to hide till it was safe to come out again. But the hidden truth had always been that the demon had grand designs he could not implement while relying solely on his own resources. He needed the assistance of someone that’s big and powerful like America.

 

He found the America he wanted to which he pretended to be loyal. He then pretended to split the loyalty with Israel, then pretended to have only 100 percent loyalty for Israel, then proved to have 200 percent loyalty for Israel, and an absolute zero loyalty for America. This would be the kind of loyalty (actually a disloyalty) that was meant to turn into a virulent antagonism should America refuse to commit suicide when necessary to better serve the interests of Israel.

 

In fact, that kind of disloyalty is what you see in the Jackson Richman article. It’s been nearly three quarters of a century that America has been keeping Israel afloat––which in civilized societies would make America the boss and Israel the supplicant––but that’s not how the Jewish pundit sees things. If you find this hard to believe, look how he talks to the boss:

 

“The Biden administration is pushing Israel to reopen the US Consulate in Jerusalem. Israel should simply reject it out of hand. The US and Israel have reportedly established a joint working group to address the consulate issue. This is a waste of time. Israel needs to tell the Biden administration that it will not be reopening the consulate in Jerusalem nor will it be opening a consulate anywhere on Israeli territory. Period”.

 

How could something like this happen to a superpower that devised contingency plans to protect itself from something as small as a lone wolf bent on scaring the citizens, to something as massively destructive as a nuclear attack launched by another military superpower?

 

Well, you get an answer to that question when you realize that 35 Republican senators introduced a bill aimed at blocking the Democratic move to open an American embassy in East Jerusalem. Even if there was no Jackson Richman to show the world how low America has sunk, the senators’ act of moral prostitution, projects a sickly image of America to an incredulous world.

 

In fact, because the self-esteem of America has been debased to this low level, no amount of power projection by America’s military, is able to compensate for the loss of respect that the world has developed and maintains for America.

To believe or not to believe is the question

 Some readers may remember what JINSA stands for. Yes, it stands for “Jewish Institute for National Security of America,” but it also has a well-publicized agenda, which it labors relentlessly to implement.

 

You’ll know what the outfit stands for when you look at its logo. It is made of two integrated parts: One part representing Israel’s Star of David; the other representing America’s flag. The combination intends to project the notion that the two parts make up one team, where America plays the role of the mule, and Israel plays the role of the mule driver.

 

The most outrageous demand that JINSA made of America, was to immediately give Israel something like 24 billion dollars, and military equipment that would arm every Israeli to the teeth. JINSA then wanted the two to start negotiating a new stream of funding for Israel. The understanding was that this stream will surpass the $3.8 billion a year already in effect, and that it will go on indefinitely but with an automatic yearly increase that will by far surpass the rate of inflation.

 

But what was it that prompted JINSA to make that demand, anyway? It was the same old contention. It was the claim that every Jew and every Jewess and their cousins had been shouting from the rooftops in support of Netanyahu’s continuous lie, repeated at the United Nations when he falsely asserted that Iran was a moment’s away from producing the bomb with which Iran intended to holocaust Israel the way that the Jews were holocausted decades earlier. Thus, the need for Israel to protect itself, said the Jews, with American weapons and American money, money, money.

 

But guess what’s happening now, my friend. You’ll find it hard to believe that the same JINSA is now accusing Iran of lying for making statements, not to the effect that it is a moment away from producing the bomb, but that it is only making modest progress in the stockpiling of enriched uranium. Not even that, says JINSA, asserting that Iran is far, far away from having enough highly enriched uranium to produce even one bomb. As to the old claim that Iran was a moment away from producing the bomb, the answer to that silly claim comes out like this: What bomb? Nobody said anything about a bomb. Did you hear anyone talk about a bomb?

 

Why is JINSA doing this now? Well, it is making the new claim for the same reason that it was making the opposite claim. Whether Iran is close to producing the bomb or far away from that goal, JINSA is telling America, this is why it must antagonize Iran; must keep the maximum pressure campaign on, must arm and fund Israel, and have all the options on the table, ready to destroy Iran when the time will come.

 

You can see all of that yourself when you study the article that came under the title: “Don’t believe Iran’s Claims of Another Nuclear Milestone,” and the subtitle: “Tehran claims to have nearly enough enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon, but this is just a ploy to extract concessions in negotiations.” The article was co-authored by the two JINSA pranksters, Blaise Misztal and Jonathan Ruhe, and was published on October 29, 2021 in The National Interest.

 

The question now is this: How do the Jews manage to assert things and their opposites without revolting their audiences, but only causing them to yawn with tired boredom? This is a good question. Luckily, however, a passage in the Misztal and Ruhe article may provide just enough light to answer it. Here, in condensed form, is how that passage reads:

 

“The latest IAEA data indicates Iran’s output of 60 percent uranium is too small to reduce the time required to produce enough material for a nuclear weapon. It had far less 20 percent uranium in June than it asserted. Its latest claim of 120 kilograms of 20 percent enriched uranium is misleading. At current rates, it won’t have a bomb’s worth until mid-2022 at the earliest. Iran is being deceptive because its enriched stockpiles are the easiest metric of progress toward a bomb. Tehran hopes to scare Biden into paying any price to keep it from crossing the threshold. Days earlier, it suggested Washington should release $10 billion in frozen Iranian funds before it would resume negotiations”.

 

What the passage shows is that to assert a point in a discussion on a favorite subject, the Jews will quote statistics that were cited in a different context, process all that through the prism of a convenient interpretation concerning the numbers, then make a false assertion to begin the discussion. In this case, the IAEA had reported on figures that apply to Iran’s civilian nuclear program, whereas JINSA chose to discuss those figures in conjunction with a military program that the Iranians never had and never will.

 

Having done this, we see Misztal and Ruhe go on to apply the same mentality to the discussion on Iran’s production and use of the early and the more advanced centrifuges. This allows us to make a general observation about the credibility of the Jews when it comes to the technological breakthroughs they claim were made by Israel and by others.

 

This is an important notion because it entails more than just laughing at the Jews who cannot help but continually blurt idiocies, describing what Israel has done as being “the envy of the world,” even if it’s a shelf item such as a desalination unit of the kind that’s produced by dozens of companies around the world but not Israel who bought the one it has from a foreign company.

 

But while this is laughable, what cannot be, is the potentially catastrophic claim that Israel is so advanced technologically, it can solve any problem of national security that America may encounter. This sort of claim was made and was repeated by such charlatans as admiral James Stavridis and by such honorable but confused individuals as General Jack Keane.

 

Who knows how many people in the supply chain procuring parts for the Pentagon, expected that when push comes to shove, they can always turn to Israel, and have their problems solved? In fact, that’s where the world stands today with the shortage of computer chips plaguing the world, and the Pentagon feeling the squeeze like everyone else. Did it ask Israel for help? If it did what was the answer?

 

To give you an idea as to what exists in Israel in terms of advanced technology, you may want to read an article that came under the title: “Semiconductors and the US-China Innovation race,” and the subtitle: “Geopolitics of the supply chain and the central tole of Taiwan.” It was a special report originally published in Foreign Policy on February 16, 2021.

 

That’s where you’ll discover who the technology players are. It is where you’ll be shocked to see that Israel isn’t even mentioned because, like the joke indicates: Going to look for technology in Israel is like going to a landfill and finding nothing but rotting garbage.

Old Enticements to achieve old Objectives

Those who never stop advocating that America get involved in forever wars, never stop enticing America ruining itself either, when it becomes apparent that such acts will serve the interests of Israel.

 

You can see an example of that when you scrutinize the article that came under the title: “Biden administration must stop nuclear deal talks with Iran,” and the subtitle: “Biden’s diplomatic investments to restore the JCPOA have not generated any return.” It was written by David Ibsen and Jordan Steckler, and was published on October 28, 2021 in The Washington Times.

 

In the same way that the Jews of America did not relent pushing the superpower to destroy the entire country of Iraq even after Israel had bombed that country’s civilian nuclear power station, the Jews of America are not relenting now in pushing America to make the moves that will eventually compel it to bomb Iran, thus start a new Middle Eastern war, and create a new costly quagmire for America to sink in and be consumed.

 

You can see how Ibsen and Steckler began the process of maneuvering America toward that end at the start of their article. Here is what they did:

 

“The perception of an America committed to global leadership is vital to project power, and shape a world that is democratic and friendly to its interests. That view has been damaged by the withdrawal of forces from Afghanistan, a lax attitude toward human rights abuses, and destabilizing activities by bad actors. America’s disengagement has diminished any hesitancy US adversaries had about engaging in bad behavior. President Biden must take corrective action that erases any doubts about America’s intent to lead and shape the global order. This is particularly important as it pertains to Iran”.

 

So that’s what Ibsen and Steckler believe it will take to motivate America, and to have it commit the next few decades to ruining itself by borrowing money to spend on destroying Iran. This would constitute replaying the scenario that America played in Iraq at the insistence of the apartheid and genocidal entity of Israel. To see to it that this will play out again, Ibsen and Steckler claim that the enemies of America are watching to detect any weakness, at which time they’ll move in and attack America.

 

The truth, however, is that the leaders of every country in the world are busy governing by relying on their people and the resources they have at hand. The only entity that’s forever relying on America to remain afloat is Israel. This is why it is Israel that relies on traitors who, like Fifth Columnists, spend their time watching America for the opportunities they can take advantage of, and entice America to do what will serve the interests of Israel; and do so to America’s detriment if necessary.

 

So now that America has discovered it is in the interest of its own people to pivot toward the Indo-Pacific region where the economic and military gravities of the world are shifting, the sleeper Fifth Columnists, who are embedded in the American theater of operation, were awaken to do their job. It was to talk America into abandoning the decision to serve its people by pivoting toward the new centers of gravity, and remain instead in the Middle East where Israel is unable to look after itself, thus lives by sucking America’s blood like a leech that’s never satisfied.

 

The problem, however, was that the traitors had exhausted the use of the fake old arguments they developed to con America into working for Israel by making her believe it was in her interest to do so. This is why you see the traitors repeat the old arguments, having formulated them somewhat differently this time. Here, in condensed form, is a sample of that:

 

“The perception of a diminished US role in Middle Eastern affairs engenders dangerous repercussions. Specifically, Iran continues to violate the nuclear deal, engage in the trade of oil and natural gas with China and Venezuela, destabilize Lebanon, and fund and arm organizations that attack Iraqis, Kurds, Saudis, Israelis and Americans. Mr. Biden should get serious about confronting the Iranian threat. His diplomatic investments to restore the nuclear deal with Tehran have not generated any return. Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi has sidelined his negotiating team in Vienna. His foreign minister has said that there will not be any new agreements. Hopes have been dashed in Washington that Iran is motivated by winning relief from US sanctions which is a faulty assertion”.

 

As can be seen, treating America like a retarded child, Ibsen and Steckler are telling its leaders that Iran violated the nuclear agreement without mentioning that it was the previous American administration that reneged on the agreement then demanded that Iran fully comply with all its provisions. The two Jewish writers are also whining that Iran’s leaders are doing what they can to feed their people by selling oil to whomever will buy and pay for it. Apparently, Ibsen and Steckler are signaling they find it odd that leaders in government would spend their time looking after the welfare of their people.

 

Having said this, Ibsen and Steckler went on to accuse Iran of destabilizing the region when in reality, it is the presence of Israel in the Middle East that has destabilized the region for several decades. In fact, it was Israel that engaged in a dozen wars whereas Iran engaged in the single war that was brought to it by then ally of America, Saddam Hussein. Still, based on this pile of lies and deceptions, Ibsen and Steckler are asking President Biden to get serious confronting Iran.

 

The article goes on in that manner for a few more paragraphs to the end where the writers make the following observation:

 

“In his inaugural address, the president said that we are in the ‘winter of peril and possibility.’ With the eyes of the world upon us, successfully confronting the Iranian threat is vital to restoring American credibility”.

 

But the truth is that the world never considered Iran to be a threat. By contrast, America and Israel were designated as being threats to world peace time after time after time.

They live in the Bubble of their Imagination

 As far as I can tell, it was CUFI’s John Hagee who came up with the lie that the countries accommodating the Jews did well whereas those that antagonized the Jews went down the drain. Now you have James Jay Carafano adding his voice to Adam Milstein who decided to revive the John Hagee lie.

 

The two clowns penned an article that says just that, but said it in conjunction with the sentiments that the American Democratic Party is developing against Israel. The article came under the title: “The Israel test of the Democratic Party,” and the subtitle: “Abandoning Israel is like abandoning democracy.” It was published on October 27, 2021 in The Washington Times.

 

Even as the subtitle equates Israel with democracy, the first paragraph scolds the Democratic Party for not knifing in the heart the American democracy as practiced by the Democratic Party. See for yourself:

 

“The Democratic Party faces an important test. Where will it stand when it comes to continuing support for Israel? Will it banish the far-left voices? Or will these voices become the party’s mainstream? The answer will determine the party’s viability in American politics”.

 

This shows that in a move reminiscent of the seditious insurrection of January 6, 2021, the two clowns Milstein and Carafano, are asking the leadership of the Democratic Party to overturn the will of the citizens who elected members of Congress whom the imbeciles call the “far left voices.” They want to see the elected members banished by an autocratic stroke of the pen for refusing to take their marching orders from Netanyahu and his successors instead of reflecting the will of their American constituents, which they are now doing. Yes, this is Jewish style murderous democracy, but it is one made for the toilet not to be displayed in the public square disguised as legitimate debate.

 

To give legitimacy to their treachery, the insurrectionists of January 6 invented the excuse of the election being stolen, and that they were only making things right. In that same vein, Adam Milstein and James Carafano invented the excuse that genocidal, apartheid Israel embodies the triumph of democracy, decency, creativity and grit, the reason why the countries accommodating the Jews do well whereas those antagonizing the Jews go down the drain. Karl Marx the Jew and Uncle Joe Stalin the Soviet must be singing the “Internationale” in unison.

 

Because it is not enough to just say that Israel and the Jews are almost as good as any deity you can think of, the demonic pair came up with examples that support their claim. One example was that of the two Democratic women who ran for the nomination of the party to be elected to Congress in the upcoming Ohio special election. The clowns say that the woman who lost must have been an antisemitic leftist because she was backed by a Jewish left winger whom she had supported when he was running. As to the woman who won, she must have been a friend of Israel because she was supported by Hillary Clinton, say Milstein and Carafano. It must be that Hillary Clinton supported Barack Obama when she ran against him and lost some 14 years ago. How else did he win?

 

What all of that implies, is that inside the decomposing heads of the braindead zombies, the Ohio election was about a single issue: the attitude of the candidates toward Israel and the Jews. But the reality is that Ohio, like the rest of America, is beset by tons of local issues, most of them so complicated as to stagger any politician. That’s what the two Ohio candidates were running on, and that’s what ultimately decided the outcome of the election.

 

The other example cited by Milstein and Carafano, is what happened in Britain. Again, the two clowns want the readers to believe that the Labour Party in Britain lost in the last election, not because of its stance regarding the Brexit issue which the election was mostly about, but because the party’s leader, Jeremy Corbyn proved to be not a lover of Jews or Israel.

 

The two writers said those things, knowing full well that Corbyn revived a party that had been moribund for decades, campaigning on a leftwing platform that did not contain promises to take marching orders from Netanyahu or his successors, promising instead to reflect the will of the British electorate. In fact, Corbyn increased the membership of the party while campaigning during the several times that he ran, and further increased the membership after winning each election. But Brexit being what it is, the British people exercised their will without succumbing to pressure from the Anti-Semites or the Philo-Semites.

 

If Milstein and Carafano wish to conduct a serious study concerning the paradigm shift that seems to have caught their attention, I have a suggestion they need to consider because it is something that promises to yield a few surprising results. Here is the idea:

 

Considering that Jews were repeatedly beaten in elections for their public support of Israel, such as happened in the New York 14th district; and considering that the social media are increasingly reflecting a public that’s disgusted with Israel’s behavior as well as that of the Americans supporting Israel, it behooves Milstein and Carafano to accept the reality that the pro-Jewish and pro-Israel stance taken by prominent personalities in politics and other fields, is a fake posture.

 

But what’s behind all that? What’s behind it is that these people have looked at the shifting paradigm and got scared. They feel that if the trend continues, the end will not be pretty for the Jews. They are positioning themselves in such a way that, when the fracas will happen, they’ll be able to tell the Jewish survivors: It wasn’t me. Look at my record and you’ll see that I was on your side all along.

 

The moral of this story is that Jews are alone again. When the end will come, there will be no one to help them, anymore than there was throughout their painful history. The difference this time is that when the fracas will have reached the end, no one will weep for the Jews, and no one will tolerate hearing the survivors cry out: Gimme compensation.

 

In recognition of the fact that the Jews brought it on themselves, there will be no compensation this time or any time after that.

A deceptive narrative that leads to a dead end

Clifford D. May has a colleague who wrote a book and so, Clifford May wrote a few words about the book. Do you know what is not surprising about this menagerie? From what you’ll gather reading the Clifford May article, you’ll expect that the book is telling a deceptive narrative.

 

The Clifford May article came under the title: “Why Hamas fights Israel,” and the subtitle: “A new book sheds light on the wars with Gaza’s rulers,” published on October 26, 2021 in the Washington Times.

 

Here is the first sentence in that article: “In 2005, Israelis conducted a bold experiment.” May goes on to tell what the experiment was supposed to be, and we’ll get to that in a moment. But first, we need to look at a persistent trait of the Judeo-Yiddish culture playing out in here. The trait is a version of the “sour grapes” attitude known to many cultures and expressed to mean the same thing universally.

 

It is that when normal people who cannot get what they want, will say they did not want it anyway. That’s sour grapes. Not so with the Jews who mean something beyond that. In fact, there is a joke to the effect that if you throw the Jew into a ditch, and he cannot get out of it, he’ll say you did him a favor because he always wanted to experience falling into a ditch. That’s more than sour grapes, an attitude you’ll sense when reading the Clifford May article. It is also a reflection of what’s reported in his colleague’s book.

 

Here now, is the supposed experiment that Clifford May claims was conducted by the Israelis: “Prevailing wisdom held that the Palestinian-Israeli conflict was due to Israel’s occupation. If that was true, shouldn’t giving Palestinians Gaza mitigate the conflict?” The implication is that it was the Israelis who decided to leave Gaza, a move designed to see how the Palestinians will react. That’s a humongous lie; one that’s more deceptive than any “sour grapes” expression. The truth is that the Israelis did not give Gaza to the Palestinians. It was the Palestinians who kicked the Jews out of Gaza.

 

What Clifford May did next, qualifies as the quintessential example of Jewish deception. Here it is:

 

“Turning Gaza into a Mediterranean Singapore was never on Hamas’ to-do list. What has been: digging tunnels into Israel, sending incendiary balloons to burn Israeli fields and forests, and firing missiles at Israel. In 2008, 2012, 2014, and again this year, the salvos were large enough to ignite wars. Israelis try to limit the weapons that Hamas receives. Israel’s enemies call that a ‘blockade’ and pretend it’s the cause – not the result – of Hamas’ actions. But food, medicine, and other non-military goods move into Gaza daily from both Israel and Egypt”.

 

Having lied saying that the Israelis gave Gaza to the Palestinians, Clifford May added layers of deceptive lies on top of each other. The deception that’s most conspicuous, is the one which implies that Singapore built a world class economy based solely on receiving food and medicine from two neighbors. But the truth is that Singapore has the whole world with which it trades all kinds of goods and services using air and sea lanes that are not blockaded by a heavily armed paranoid neighbor, the way that Gaza is.

 

The reality is that in the same way the Israelis convinced the Americans that Israel is surrounded by people who will want to destroy it the moment they acquire the means to do so, the Jewish warmongers in America convinced the US government that anyone in the world who can, will seek to destroy America. For these reasons, the Congress voted to increase the Pentagon budget, allowing it to produce and equip itself with advanced weapons. The Congress also passed laws that allow the Pentagon to give Israel the deadliest weapons it has. And all of that, made it possible for the Jews of Israel to destroy every progress that’s made by their neighbors, beginning with the Palestinians, especially those in Gaza. How can the people of Gaza build a Singapore-like economy under these conditions?

 

Thus, for Clifford May to say that the war situation which repeatedly pits Israel’s F-16s, F-35s and smart bombs against Gaza’s kites and homemade rockets, is caused by Hamas and not the paranoid Jews, is to demonstrate the magnitude of Jewish propensity to deceive the self and lie to others.

 

Here is another Jewish lie that has persisted for half a century, and began to lose its force only recently:

 

“In 1967, Egypt, Jordan, and other Arab nations launched what became known as the Six-Day War. Its aim was Israel’s extermination. Its failure left Gaza and the West Bank in Israeli hands. Suppose this brief and factual history is unfamiliar to you. In that case, that’s likely due to the persistent propagation of misinformation and disinformation about Israel – in the media, on campuses, and from such organizations like the UN and Human Rights Watch”.

 

What the Jews call the Six-Day War, is actually the Six-Year War that started with the Israeli sneak attack on its neighbors in 1967 and culminated in the kicking of the Jews out of the Sinai and the Eastern Golan in 1973. Still, the name “Six-Day” persists because the Jewish propaganda machine continues to monopolize the media outlets in America and much of the Western world. Thus, when Clifford May speaks of “the persistent propagation of misinformation and disinformation about Israel,” he is dripping with lies of the most transparent kind. And he is totally shameless about it.

 

As long as the Jews will keep lying to themselves and to others, they will never have the peace that has eluded them for thousands of years. They will hurt others as they roam the Earth, but all those they hurt will heal eventually; a condition that the Jews will never experience.

A killer cook in the sausage kitchen of Congress

As shocking as that is, it happens at times that a doctor or a nurse would go crazy but show no sign that might betray them, and silently kill the patients they are supposed to care for and heal.

 

Can something like this be happening in other institutions, and we don’t know about it? Could it be that crazy directors get appointed to the board of companies where they poison the smooth operations of the enterprise by continually inventing superfluous arguments, and demanding changes that might sound reasonable on the surface but in reality, are meant to harm the institution?

 

Worse, can something like this happen to the legislative assembly of a so-called democracy? Can it happen that a group of people get elected based on an agenda that sounds attractive to the electorate but in reality, the group aims to implement a hidden agenda? It would be an agenda that will disrupt the business of the nation they are supposed to serve faithfully.

 

More specifically, is it happening now that the Congress of the United States of America contains elected and appointed individuals whose hidden agendas motivate them to continually come up with specious arguments? Can it be that these individuals also use the parliamentary procedures to advance their hidden agendas even when it becomes unmistakably clear that they are damaging the interests of a United States they swore to serve faithfully?

 

The answer to that question is, yes it can happen. And there are two recent articles that show how this is done. One article came under the title: “Don’t give Taiwan a US defense guarantee,” written by Daniel DePetris, and published on October 18, 2021 in The Washington Examiner. The other article came under the title: “America’s terrible post-Cold War foreign policy,” and the subtitle: “Starting with the Iraq War, the ‘swamp’ controls our international politics.” It was written by Henry Cooper and Dan Callington, and published on October 25, 2021 in the Washington Times.

 

Right there, in their first paragraph, Henry Cooper and Dan Gallington tell the readers what it is they’ll be talking about in the rest of the article. It is this: “Despite spending trillions of mostly borrowed dollars, the US has not done well in the post-Cold War environment, as reflected by our diminished worldwide standing and influence.” But why is that? Unfortunately, in answering this question, the two writers gave an explanation that missed the bull’s eye by a yard or two.

 

What Henry Cooper and Dan Gallington did, is make a big deal about a little nobody from Iraq named Ahmed Chalabi. Appearing out of nowhere, he was found to run an obscure organization named the Iraqi National Congress. Our esteemed writers introduced him to the readers like this:

 

“We wasted trillions on invading Iraq, following a colossal intelligence failure that concluded Iraq was producing a nuclear capability. Several who were close to the G.W. Bush Administration have indicated Mr. Bush was actively considering going into Iraq before 9/11 — most likely because of influence from the late Ahmed Chalabi and his organization”.

 

No. This is a lie and both Cooper and Gallington know it. They know it because Chalabi alone could not have done as much as he did without help from some kind of deep state that was embedded in the American system of governance. In addition, the full truth has been out for decades, and the writers even hinted at it in their article. Here is how they let out the hint:

 

“A report by the Senate concluded that false information from the Iraqi National Congress was used to support intelligence assessments on Iraq and was widely distributed in intelligence products. However, broad support for Mr. Chalabi also came from Congress and Bill Clinton who helped persuade Congress to pass the Iraq Liberation Act. In fact, one could not have had any senior national security policy job in Washington during this period without having seen Mr. Chalabi at work - on our congress, the NSC, the State and Defense Departments, and especially the intelligence community. Mr. Chalabi was prolific, well-funded and effective. However, some of our allies thought that he was likely an Iranian agent”.

 

The full truth is that Dick Cheney who was an Israeli asset in the White House, had turned the office of Vice President to which he appointed himself, into a war room for Israel’s agents to use as they willed. Priority number one for Israel at the time being the destruction of Iraq, the Israeli-American lobbying syndicate recruited Chalabi and made him its point-man. The syndicate placed him where it needed him to be at any given time, and had him spew what it programmed him to regurgitate. This is how the entire American government was turned into a Jewish machine dedicated to the destruction of Iraq even at the risk of America being destroyed with it.

 

This brings us to the Daniel DePetris article. It compels us to pose the question: Is America about to repeat that sordid history with the Taiwan situation? Here is how DePetris described the situation:

 

“Is a Chinese invasion of Taiwan on the near horizon? The question is legitimate. US special operations forces are in Taiwan, training its forces. This rotational deployment has lasted for more than a year. The cacophony of activity around Taiwan is raising the temperature in Washington, too. Rep. Elaine Luria is advocating for a preemptive authorization for the use of military force to defend Taiwan. It’s well past time for policymakers to sit down and ask a simple question. Namely, is the US really prepared to go to war with China in order to defend Taiwan? More importantly, should it?”

 

And so, we must ask the questions: Is Representative Elaine Luria the Ahmed Chalabi of Taiwan? Is she in the Congress to complete the work that he started? Are they both the killer cooks in the kitchen of the American government?

 

May America’s leaders get wise enough to know what their public already knows, and start repealing the Jewish-crafted laws that keep turning America into a poodle sitting comfortably in the lap of the Tel-Aviv/ New-York Syndicate.

A Plan B that is no Plan of any Description

You see a title that says “Plan B” meant to solve a problem that has been intractable for a long time, and you get excited because you believe that someone has finally come up with the creative solution that you and everyone else were hoping for.

 

You go over what you believe is an ingenious plan, but the deeper you get into the article describing it, the more you discover that it is a quilt of all the plans that came previously and proved unworkable. You feel worse than disappointed; you feel deceived and cheated.

 

This is the feeling you’ll get when you read the article that came under the title: “A plan B for Iran,” and the subtitle: “Washington Needs to Turn Up the Pressure on Tehran.” It was written by Michael Singh and published on October 25, 2021 in Foreign Affairs.

 

After an introductory paragraph that tells what the article is about, Michael Singh hits the reader with two contradictory images of Iran that say this article is not a serious discussion. Here is one image of Iran: “The maximum pressure sanctions campaign left Iran’s economy reeling.” And here is the other image of Iran: “Iranian officials believe that returning to compliance with the nuclear deal is inferior to the alternatives.” The first image is that of a country on its knees, about to collapse and ready to take any deal shoved down its throat. The second is that of a tiger giving the middle finger of its giant paw to America’s monkeyshine. Will the real Iran please stand up.

 

How can someone hold those two images of one and the same thing simultaneously in his head? The answer is in the use of the word “reeling.” Even though no one has bothered to define that word, dozens have attributed it to the state of Iran’s economy. They did so not because they were thinking of a specific image, but because it sounded fashionable to say “reeling.” And so, copying and stitching into a quilt what was fashionable at one time or another, has been the pattern that Michael Singh adopted throughout the article while adding nothing new of his own, and yet pretending to do so.

 

And then, as you would expect, Michael Singh proceeded to build on what he borrowed from the others, by adding to it still more of what he borrowed from the others. And he called all that, a Plan B of his own creation. Here is how that went:

 

“By developing a credible Plan B that sharpens the consequences for Iran should it continue to rebuff diplomatic overtures and expand its nuclear activities while simultaneously offering Iran a diplomatic proposal that has a better chance of outlasting his tenure in office, President Biden may be able to change Iranian leaders’ calculus”.

 

So, you wonder what exactly does the Michael Singh proposal come down to? Well, it suggests, two components. One is to sharpen the consequences for Iran if the tiger does not pull back the extended middle finger he is throwing in America’s face. The other is to offer Iran a new diplomatic proposal of the kind that will outlast Biden’s tenure in office, which means will not be repealed in case Donald Trump or a clone of his, gets elected President of the United States in 2024.

 

The fact that, so far, the threat of sharpening the consequences for Iran has not been defined, and neither was the promise that a new diplomatic proposal will be made to Iran, rekindle your expectation that Michael Singh will define them both after all. And so, you look forward to seeing flesh put on what has so far been a barebone skeleton description without recognizable features that can be assessed. And so, you go over the article with a magnifying lens, looking for a description in depth of those consequences and that diplomatic proposal. Unfortunately, you find neither but encounter the following instead:

 

“First and foremost, the United States must demonstrate that Iran will face consequences. The assurances that future administrations will not again leave the deal, are assurances that Biden could not provide even if he wished to do so. Should Iran’s obstinacy persist, the Biden administration should enforce and expand existing economic sanctions. In order to accomplish this, the Biden administration will need to underscore its commitment to enforcing Trump-era sanctions on Iran. Foremost among these are Iran’s sales of oil to China, but concerns about Iran’s reaction and competing priorities in the fraught US-Chinese relationship will make it difficult to pull the trigger”.

 

In other words, Michael Singh is recommending that the current administration should maintain the status quo as put down by the previous administration, and call that achievement a brand-new plan B. Can it get any worse from here on? Yes, it can and it did. Here is how that went:

 

“It is the case that any US president would consider military action if confronted with urgent and credible intelligence that Iran had decided to dash for a nuclear weapon. It is thus preferable that Iran understand the consequences of such a decision. The real challenge is how to ensure that threats of military action are credible as the United States executes a long-delayed strategic shift away from the Middle East and toward Asia. Maintaining the credibility of US threats will require continuing to act when Iran and its proxies target American interests”.

 

How so refreshingly original! Why didn’t I think of that?

The Mechanics of American Corruption revealed

You often hear and read words to the effect that America has ceased to function. Most of the time this assertion is linked to the proposition that the system is driven by corrupt practices. The trouble is that the assertion and the proposition, are almost never explained in sufficient details.

 

Whereas democracy in America, with regard to domestic affairs, is still breathing despite the cancel culture that has permeated the political system, democracy with regard to foreign affairs was murdered and buried long ago. It is easy to see why this is so. It’s that America has two constituents: one liberal and one conservative. Whereas each group tries to cancel and bury the other, each has the media outlets to which it can run and express its views, thus both groups remain alive, if barely. When it comes to foreign affairs, however, the Judeo-Israeli establishment made sure that the murder of American democracy as practiced overseas, remains a bipartisan and permanent affair.

 

Consequently, if we want to understand something about the mechanics of America’s corrupt practices, we’ll have to look into how things are done in the realm of foreign affairs. In so doing, we might even get a bonus in the form of clarity with regard to the domestic situation. Well then, it happens that an article was published recently which can help us conduct a thorough study of American corruption. The article came under the title: “Biden has power to make Jordan’s King Abdullah release a US citizen,” written by Quin Hillyer, and published on October 22, 2021 in The Washington Examiner.

                         

Seeing that title, the reader is already hit with the notion that whatever Biden is urged to do, he is told to use coercion to do it, which is one element in the toolbox of corrupt practices. Whereas Quin Hillyer expressed this thought blatantly (given that the target is a foreigner) things are done in a more subtle fashion when things are done at the domestic level. That is, Democratic Biden would not have been urged to use his power to force the Republicans to do something. Instead, he would have been urged to use his executive power to cancel an executive order issued by his predecessor, for example.

 

When you’ve read the entire article, you’ll have noticed the use of three ingredients, which serve as standard staples in all articles of this kind. One ingredient is the macho element. Another is the false claim that American citizens are always subjected to unfair trials abroad, the reason why the principle that those who commit a crime must serve their time, should not apply to Americans abroad. The third ingredient is the fantastic promise that if America did what the Jews recommend, the whole world will win, and be covered with a heavenly bliss now, tomorrow and forever.

 

The following is the sentence with which Quin Hillyer began his discussion. It is the blatant display of a macho attitude which Jews always urge American leaders to adopt when dealing with foreigners, most especially the Arabs. Here is that sentence: “It’s time for President Joe Biden to get tough with King Abdullah of Jordan”.

 

Worried that accusing Jordan’s system of justice of being unfair to an American citizen, will not by itself be sufficient to convince the readers that pressuring King Abdullah to release the prisoner is warranted, Quin Hillyer used the two-pronged approach of demonizing the foreign King while at the same time whitewashing the activities of the American citizen — to win the sympathy of the readers. Here is how Hillyer did that:

 

“Abdullah has been in the US, living in luxury as his nation struggles. Meanwhile, he is holding a US citizen in prison after a trial in which the citizen, Awadallah was afforded no chance to call his witnesses or provide exculpatory evidence, and denied private meetings with his attorneys. Combined with the $1.5 billion in annual aid the US provides Jordan, Biden has the leverage to demand the release of Awadallah. The king has spent a fortune securing ritzy compounds in California and Washington. His rule is absolute, and his nation is struggling economically. Several members of Congress are watching the event. Still, they remain tight-lipped, knowing that Biden’s debacle in Afghanistan has eroded US credibility. They don’t want to make noise that would undermine that credibility even further if Biden also fumbles this situation. The State Department is tracking the case, but has remained publicly mum as well. The solution should be simple. As King Abdullah is here with his hand out, Biden should remember that the US is the senior partner in the relationship”.

 

Having made the point that the foreign king is the villain in this drama whereas the American citizen is the good guy, Quin Hillyer urged President Biden to disregard the benefits that America draws from its relation with Jordan, and use the American aid as a bargaining chip to coerce the king into violating the fundamental principle of democracy which says that the judiciary must never be interfered with, something that even the State Department and the American Congress refrained from recommending.

 

Finally, Hillyer threw in the third ingredient, which is to the effect that if Biden did as told, everyone will win something, and the world will be a better place for it. Here is how Hillyer put it:

 

“Jordan would get Awadallah out of its hair, and the US would get its citizen out of Jordan. Meanwhile, the US would not look into the origins of King Abdullah’s spending spree. The alliance would win, US sovereignty over its citizens would win, and Middle East stability will be bolstered”.

 

Except for one thing. The world will not look at this piece of theatrics wearing rose-colored glasses. It will ogle it with naked eyes, and see yet another example of Jewish-inspired depravity, played out publicly by a shameless America that lost its moral compass.

A fundamental Lesson on Facts and Opinions

A controversy has exploded in America about what is fact and what is opinion, and how to treat each once you have determined what it is that you’re dealing with.

 

It all happened when a new movement began in America the way that movements always do: A group of people in society got fed up being treated unjustly, thus organized themselves to demand that their rights be respected the same as everyone else. That group was the African-Americans who felt that despite the Civil Rights Act, which compels the governments to treat them as equals, they continued to be treated shabbily by a society that could not shake off its racism. However long it took it, the group finally came to realize why this was the case.

 

The African Americans understood that the culprit causing their current plight, was none other than history itself. It is that America started on the basis of the Whites representing a superior race that’s entitled to enjoy all the privileges that can be had — whereas they being Blacks, represented the inferior race that was accorded minimal rights. For several centuries, what was said and done in America, emanated from that reality, and in turn imbued the still developing American culture with it.

 

The African-Americans could, therefore, only conclude that the solution to the societal racism they suffer in the country—however blatant or subtle it may be—can only come by acknowledging their history, and by erasing every unsavory vestige that this history left behind. This meant, among other things, taking down monuments representing slave-owning offenders.

 

Whereas much of White America has welcomed this move and was eager to participate in the debate on how to fix race relations in the country, a small group of Whites, who fear they will be suppressed if not oppressed because of sins committed by their ancestors, began to agitate in an effort to stop the movement known as Critical Race Theory (CRT) which aims to expose the extent to which the culture has assimilation slavery, and not even realize it.

 

This being a time in America where nothing is done without being turned into a political game, CRT was subjected to the worst kind of political football. In fact, what the fearful group of Whites did, was pit the Jews against the Blacks by telling them that if CRT triumphs, so will the denial of the Holocaust. And the Jews rose up in arms. They joined the debate with the endless repetition of a single argument, something that went like this: Unlike slavery whose many facets can be debated as opinions, the Holocaust is a fact which can only be considered a bad thing that does not lend itself to debate.

 

But this is absurd on its face because it can just as well be said that unlike the Holocaust whose many facets can be debated as opinions, slavery is a fact that can only be considered a bad thing which does not lend itself to debate. But the Jews are adamant because they have many truths they want to keep hidden by shutting the debate on the Holocaust. Perhaps the most damning of these truths, is that evidence was brought to light to the effect that early in the twentieth century, prominent Jews helped the rise of Nazism the way they are today helping the rise of Trumpism.

 

Two articles were published recently that demonstrate what happens when the Jews deploy the kind of haggling you see in their publications, thus pollute the marketplace of ideas with useless noise. They suffocate the possibility of having a debate based on reason, and they advance principles that the frivolous and the lightweights in government, find appealing. This is how the helm of the American ship of state is handed to them. And this is how the ship of state ends up hitting an iceberg. You know what happens next.

 

One of the articles came under the title: “How the Neocons outfoxed Colin Powell,” and the subtitle: “Powell became as inculpated in the Iraq imbroglio as the neocons who had outflanked him to promote it.” It was written by Jacob Heilbrunn, and published on October 18, 2021 in The National Interest. The other article came under the title: “Reality as Disciplinarian,” and the subtitle: “Agreeing on what the United States should not attempt to do in the world is only one part of what is necessary for America to bounce back in reality, not just in rhetoric.” It was written by George Beebe, and published on October 22, 2021 also in the National Interest.

 

Here is what Jacob Heilbrunn has said about the way that Colin Powell was brought by the neocons to doing what he knew was wrong:

 

“The neocons [euphemism for Jews] never relented. During the 1990s they aligned themselves with the Iraqi exile leader Ahmed Chalabi and made the case for war with Iraq. When Powell became Secretary of State in the George W. Bush administration, however, his relationship with Cheney didn’t fray. It unraveled. Powell, as James Mann shows in his book about the two men, lacked the cojones to tell Bush he wouldn’t support an invasion of Iraq. Instead, he became implicated in a conflict that, in his heart of hearts, he knew was unmerited”.

 

The point that’s made here, is that when it comes to pushing America to do the wrong thing, the Jews never relent. Every time they see a weakness they can exploit, they get in and try their luck. If their tricks work, they go to the next step. If the tricks fail, the Jews try again and again till they get what they want—regardless of what it will cost America and the world.

 

George Beebe must have been aware of these realities, the reason why he concluded that discipline in the political life of the country is what America needs today — and that’s what his article is about. The following is a condensed version of what he said about this subject:

 

“The faith in America’s prowess continued under George W. Bush in the form of his ‘Freedom Agenda.’ He became an apostle of spreading the American creed in the Middle East. The Iraq War became an effort to create a modern democratic polity whose success would kick off a virtuous domino effect among Iraq’s neighbors. The few voices who dared to suggest that Washington might be biting off more than it could chew were dismissed as delusional at best and unpatriotic at worst. The American military was saddled with missions for which it was ill-suited. America’s clout and standing in the world plummeted. Our self-confidence was left in tatters”.

 

That’s what the Jews did to America, believing it will be in the interest of Israel to ruin the superpower if necessary, so that Israel gets inflated into the bigger entity that the Jews alone could never make it.

A well-rounded Lesson on Defense and Arms Race

Those in the United States Congress that have their hollowed-out zombie heads filled with fluffed-up Judeo-Israeli propaganda about Israel’s needs to defend itself, must make it their duty to read the article that Professor David Kearn wrote under the title: “Don’t panic over China’s nuclear buildup,” published on October 21, 2021 in the New York Daily News.

 

This is a lesson that applies to China because it is what David Kearn meant it to be. But it is also a general sort of lesson that applies to every region on the globe because the concepts discussed in the article are universal. What renders the totality of these concepts a well-rounded discussion, is that they deal with the role which offensive weapons play, the role which defensive weapons play, and the paired relation that exists between the two.

 

A couple of the many false ideas, produced by the Judeo-Israeli propaganda machine, are debunked and refuted in the David Kearn article while he delivered a discussion that was directed at the China situation. (1) Israel needs a defensive shield to protect it against the rockets coming from Gaza and Lebanon, more than the latter two need defensive shields to protect them against Israel’s F-16 and F-35 warplanes. (2) It does Israel a great deal of good to be given weapons superior to those of its neighbors. Just as important is to have American officials say so openly.

 

What follow are 3 compilations, reproduced in condensed form, of what David Kearn has said with regard to the relevant subjects that apply equally to the situation which exists between America and China, and by extension, the situation that applies between Israel and its neighbors.

 

The first part discusses the role that the offensive weapons of a foe, play when it comes to neutralizing the effectiveness of a defensive shield. Here is that account:

 

“News broke that China tested a hypersonic glide vehicle (HGV). It could mark a new phase in the competition between the US and China. For the latter, an HGV capability provides a guarantee of overcoming US missile defenses. China’s small missile forces would then be capable of overwhelming the unproven defensive systems currently deployed in Alaska and California. The deployment of HGV confirms the irrelevance of US missile defenses”.

 

Note that offensive weapons are needed to overcome the defensive shield of the opponent. Note also that the professor makes it clear that (most advanced technologically) America, which has been working on a defensive shield since Ronald Reagan, has not yet developed a reliable shield. To have pretended then it was possible to shield against incoming rockets, was a big lie. To pretend now that it is possible to shield against rockets, is just as big a lie. What this says about Israel’s Iron Dome, is that if it exists at all, the claim that it is effective, is inflated beyond anything credible. It is the work of a Jewish propaganda machine that is run by buffoons who are far removed from the ability to reason the way that humans do.

 

The second part of David Kearn’s article tells how the defense of a nation can be secured by having the means to retaliate with offensive weapons:

 

“What should we make of this? First, the US maintains a triad of nuclear weapon systems. This deterrent capability has not changed and will not change with the deployment of hypersonic vehicles by China, or Russia for that matter. Second, the US has been working on the development of hypersonic weapons. Moreover, any Chinese advantage is mitigated by the guarantee of retaliation”.

 

What this says, is that even if China were able to bomb and eliminate America’s land-based missiles, America still has the means to retaliate because it owns a submarine fleet, and long-range bombers that China could not stop. Applied to Israel’s relation with its neighbors, this says that whereas Israel did not fear the Gaza rockets enough to refrain from attacking the Strip during the last war, it feared the arsenal of Hezbollah enough to keep quiet at the Lebanese border. The lesson to draw from this, is that if and when Hamas gets to be as well equipped as Hezbollah, there will be peace and quiet at the Gaza border for the same reason that there is peace and quiet at the Lebanese border. It is that Israel will be deterred in the South by Hamas’s arsenal, the way that it is deterred in the North by Hezbollah’s arsenal. Next to the complete disarmament of both sides, this would be a good outcome.

 

The third part of David Kearn’s article, discusses the risk of triggering an arms race by one side or the other insisting on having better or superior weapons than the opponent, be that weapons of the offensive or defensive kind:

 

“The larger question is whether we have initiated an arms race among the powers in the world. Despite the prohibitive costs, poor performance and persistent failures of US ballistic missile defenses, continued investment on the program have spurred fears in Beijing. Those fears have now been acted upon, and the development of offensive programs to overcome US defenses have left the United States worse off”.

 

What this says is that the best way to secure peace and quiet for your population, is to refrain from provoking a potential foe into racing you at procuring better and more weapons of any kind, be that to defend themselves against your attacks, or to attack you.

 

America’s words and actions with regard to China, left it worse off, says Professor David Kearn. By the same token, his article demonstrates that working to give Israel better and more weapons of any kind, and then talk about it publicly, is leaving the Middle East and the world worse off.

The US voices of self-ruin are singing again

Not being at war anywhere on the planet, is so unusual for America, you would think that everyone in the country feels like waking up one morning in a hospital bed and being told: You are completely cured now, America. You can go home.

 

But is this what America is told that will keep it out of the diplomatic hospital?

 

We can check where things stand in America by consulting the article that came under the title: “The Taiwan Triangle,” and the subtitle: “To maintain peace in the Taiwan Strait, US policy will need to adjust to deal with a more capable and assertive China.” It was written by Richard Haass, and published on October 18, 2021 on the website of the Council on Foreign Relations.

 

Here, in condensed form, is Richard Haass’s view of the situation:

 

“Attempts to treat Taiwan as a solvable problem will result in a conflict that will leave the US, Taiwan and China much worse off. The reason is that there is no possible outcome that would be universally acceptable. US-China relations have deteriorated in recent years, but not because of Taiwan. There is speculation that Chinese President Xi Jinping is contemplating the use of force to absorb Taiwan. Allowing China to coerce or absorb Taiwan would end the US alliance system in Asia. Governments would defer to China or become more autonomous, which could lead to conventional military and nuclear proliferation. But recognizing Taiwan’s independence in the face of mainland opposition would result in a rupture in US-Chinese relations. To avoid war and maintain a working relationship with China, the US does not have a free hand with Taiwan. What is needed are policy changes. That includes enhancing US military capabilities in the region, building closer defense integration with Japan and Australia, and strengthening Taiwan’s defense capacities”.

 

Do you detect, in that account, the kind of poison that sent America to hospital on previous occasions? The answer is yes. It was the use of baseless speculation as a foundation upon which to construct a comprehensive and definitive foreign policy, putting the military at the center of it.

 

Here is the current fabricated speculation that might lead to a repeat of the old policies: “There is speculation that Chinese President Xi Jinping is contemplating the use of force to absorb Taiwan.” And here is the policy that might result, “What is needed includes enhancing US military capabilities in the region, building closer defense integration with Japan and Australia, and strengthening Taiwan’s defense capacities”.

 

As Ronald Reagan would say: “Here we go again.” In fact, this has been the sad story of how America was convinced to get into war after war after war since the Second World War. Aside from sending a massive military taskforce into a foreign country to arrest a drug trafficker or some such adventure where America scored what looks like a small success, all other adventures resulted in horrific losses of lives and treasure for America, as well as immeasurable calamities to millions of people almost everywhere in the world. It was the sort of behavior that will remain unforgivable as well as unforgettable blots on America’s historical record.

 

But is there someone in America who is willing to put together a foreign policy that avoids repeating the mistakes of the past, and keep America out of the diplomatic hospital for good? The answer is, yes.

 

That policy is spelled out in an article which came under the title: “US Should Get Out of the Way of Middle East Cooperation,” and the subtitle: “The prevailing doomsday thought is that US disengagement from the Middle East will create a power vacuum that the regional powers will move to violently fill. The immediate behavior of those in question provides evidence to the contrary.” It was written by Scott McCann, and published on October 20, 2021 in The National Interest.

 

You’ll find that the first thing, which Scott McCann proposes, is a simple but powerful idea. It goes like this: “Uncertainty about US commitment to the Middle East may be the best strategy for achieving regional peace and stability.” The suggestion here is that the intrusion of the United States into the affairs of the region has been the major factor that negated the development of peace and stability in the Middle East during the last seven decades. Here, in condensed form, is what else Scott McCann has said:

 

“Saudi Arabia and Iran provide clues to regional behavior in the absence of US presence. The two met for the first time to ease tensions between them. Numerous rounds of meetings have occurred since. Iran’s Foreign Minister met with other Middle East and North African foreign ministers and senior delegates. Speculation was that Saudi Arabia opposed the Iran nuclear deal to deny the US and Iran an avenue for détente. With the US now out of the picture, the kingdom has chosen to engage diplomatically with its rival and support a solution that prevents a nuclear arms race in the region. Egypt, Jordan, and Iraq held discussions. UAE and Turkey met to improve their bitter relationship. Egypt, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE agreed to end their blockade of Qatar. When presented with a reality that their fights may occur without guarantee of US weapons or support, the region has chosen diplomacy. Despite the narrative that the US presence in the region promotes security and stability, it appears that US military support and arms sales only encourage fighting”.

 

Only once did America do the right thing intervening in the Middle East. It happened when America was invited by the Arab League to help it evict Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait when he invaded that country.

 

The moral of the story is that the Arabs and not the Jews, represent the voice of peace and stability in the Middle East.