MOR vs. MAINSTREAM: Which model explains 50 years of Middle East policy? (Part 3)
The Geopolitical Theorem: An MOR series
If you haven’t read Part 2 yet, you may do so here:
In 1983, twin terrorist attacks killed 258 US citizens in Lebanon—the deadliest terrorist blow suffered by the United States up to that time. A full 241 of those killed were young US servicemen. Marines—boys. Killed in their bunks as they slept.
The explosion was massive, equivalent to thousands of pounds of TNT. And it caused the entire structure of the US Marine barracks to pancake in seconds. They were swallowed. Not since the famous battle of Iwo Jima, in World War II, had so many US Marines died in a single day.
And the author of that attack? Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, creator of jihadi Iran.
When the Miami Herald revealed in 1986 that communications intercepted by the National Security Agency (NSA) had identified Khomeini as the executive author of the Lebanon attack, nobody was surprised.1 Speculation had been rife, because Khomeini’s Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC)—exporter of Iranian terrorism—was known to have an extensive proxy network already in Lebanon.
But what nobody suspected—not before 1986—was that Khomeini, who’d murdered all those young American soldiers, was getting billions of dollars in secret weapons from Ronald Reagan, President of the United States, and Commander in Chief of all US Armed Forces. Because that was unthinkable. And because, well, Ronald Reagan’s entire presidential campaign had centered on standing up to Khomeini!
But Khomeini was indeed getting billions of dollars in secret weapons from Ronald Reagan.
And then Khomeini killed 258 US citizens.
Those dead kids were not avenged—let the record show. With terrorists everywhere paying close attention, Reagan cut and run: he evacuated all US forces from Lebanon. The prestige of the Islamic Republic soared. And the kicker: in secret, Reagan kept on sending Khomeini billions of dollars in weapons—yes, after Khomeini killed all those American boys.
You have to ask yourself: What would Khomeini’s jihadi spy in the White House have done differently? And the corollary question: Couldn’t a prosecutor support—on this evidence—a formal charge of treason?
Nothing inconvenienced this Reagan-Bush policy until the secret weapons transfers to Khomeini were publicly exposed in 1986. Huge scandal: the Iran-Contra Affair, they called it.
The true structure of power in Washington was revealed in this Affair, because the pro-Khomeini policy of the Reagan-Bush Republicans had actually begun with Democrat Jimmy Carter, who removed the Shah and installed Khomeini, teeing the ball for his ‘rival’ and alleged political opposite: Ronald Reagan.
Now, this entire pro-Khomeini policy, as I have explained in Part 2, is one that the mainstream model of US geopolitics requires to be impossible. Not unlikely—impossible.
Why?
Well, because the mainstream model has the US bosses as enemies of jihadism and best allies of Israel, with Israeli security as a top priority. If you say that such hypothetical US bosses can do Iran-Contra—empower the jihadi murderers of American boys, jihadi murderers who promise to exterminate the Israeli Jews—then the key terms ‘enemy,’ ‘ally,’ and ‘priority’ cease to have any meaning. You are no longer speaking, and that’s worse than being wrong.
To be semantically admissible, the mainstream model must declare Iran-Contra impossible. Yet Iran-Contra happened. The mainstream model is refuted. QED.
This condenses my geopolitical theorem, presented at greater length in Part 2 of this series.
(You are welcome to hunt for evidentiary and logical lines of attack against my theorem, but please go read Part 2 first.)
Here below, in Part 3, I will pretend that none of this has happened. I will pretend that I haven’t already refuted the mainstream model. In other words, in this piece, I’ll let the mainstream model have Iran-Contra for free! But this ain’t charity—more like feline sport. Because I will ask this question:
Can the mainstream model explain better than MOR the evidence after Iran-Contra?
The immediate aftermath of Iran-Contra
The public exposure of Iran-Contra made sending secret weapons to Khomeini more difficult. Was subsequent policy an adaptation to that difficulty?
The facts are these.
Following the Iran-Contra exposures, Ronald Reagan supported a 1987 UN-mediated ceasefire proposal for the Iran-Iraq War, via Resolution 598, and he leaned directly and heavily on Ayatollah Ali Khamenei—then the Iranian president—to accept it. But though Reagan insisted, Khamenei’s boss, the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, hadn’t yet realized how vulnerable—in the wake of the Iran-Contra exposures—his position had become. Like the fanatic he was, he rejected the ceasefire proposal.
During the spring of 1988, Iran suffered a rapid and devastating defeat in the Second Battle of Al Faw: her forces were routed in under 48 hours, with thousands killed or captured and her entire position on the Al Faw peninsula erased. This shattered Iran’s strategic posture and exposed her vulnerability to large-scale Iraqi offensives.
Virtually the entire Iranian military and political leadership concluded that to continue fighting risked an Iraqi conquest of Iran. But Khomeini alone resisted this conclusion. He was the Supreme Leader, though, so the fighting continued.
Following this, in April of 1988, Ronald Reagan launched a major attack against the Iranian navy: Operation Praying Mantis. Two months later Khomeini finally signed the ceasefire, which he described as “drinking the cup of poison.”2 A bitter pill it may have been, but this way, Khomeini’s jihadi revolution in Iran survived.
How do the two rival models interpret all this? Allow me to demonstrate here the importance of context.
If the Praying Mantis attack on the Iranian navy is removed from surrounding events, defenders of the mainstream model may hold it up and say: Aha! This is evidence that the US bosses are anti-jihad: they attacked Khomeini’s Iran. But if you place Praying Mantis in context—as you should—then you must explain why Iran-Contra and Praying Mantis both happened. The MOR model, naturally, must rise to meet the exact same standard.
MOR interpretation. After Iran-Contra was discovered, supplying jihadi Iran with weapons became more difficult for the US bosses. If Iraq now defeated Iran, this might ruin the entire pro-jihad strategy, because Iraq—Iran’s regional rival—offered an alternative and influential secular (fascist) model for the Muslim world. Thus, after Iran-Contra broke scandalously into the news, the pro-jihad Reagan-Bush supported a UN-mediated ceasefire proposal in 1987 and pressed Khomeini to accept it—to save Iranian jihadism. But Khomeini—even for his own good—couldn’t bend the knee, so Reagan-Bush made themselves understood in the language of overwhelming force: Operation Praying Mantis. Khomeini folded. And that’s how Reagan-Bush saved him.
Mainstream interpretation. After Iran-Contra (which this model declares impossible) was exposed, the US bosses switched (returned?) to an anti-jihad and pro-Israel policy. And that’s why they launched Operation Praying Mantis against the Iranian navy.
I consider it highly unlikely that rational actors playing for world power will have the radically unstable preferences that the mainstream interpretation here requires. But I will grant that the ad hoc claim of strategic fickleness—the mainstream model’s only resort—is not logically inadmissible in principle. Since we are allowing the mainstream model here to sidestep the Iran-Contra refutation (see Part 2), we’ll let it limp along.
But now we must ask: Which of the two models—mainstream or MOR—is undermined by the events that follow?
The Gulf War—making jihadi Iran regionally secure
Not long after Khomeini signed the ceasefire, US President George Bush Sr.—a top Iran-Contra leader—launched the Gulf War of 1991. That war neutralized Iraq and hence allowed Iran—Bush’s Iran-Contra beneficiary—to recover her strength.
This outcome hardly embarrasses the perception of a consistent pro-jihad, pro-ayatollah policy. Especially when you consider that every piece of evidence here suggests that Bush deliberately gave himself the excuse for the Gulf War by drawing Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein into a trap.
Briefly, before the Gulf War, Bush sent General Norman Schwarzkopf—who would later lead that war—to persuade Arab bosses in the Gulf that Saddam Hussein, previously their defender against Iranian expansion, would now be The Enemy.
As the Kuwaiti sheiks later explained it to Milton Viorst, who wrote about this in The New Yorker and then in his book Sandcastles, they were made to understand that Bush would have Kuwait’s back in any confrontation with Iraq.3 Such revelations by the Kuwaiti sheiks make sense of their behavior, otherwise inexplicable. For though incapable of winning a military fight with Iraq, these Kuwaiti sheiks began a cumulative campaign of increasingly brazen—even savagely offensive—provocations against Iraqi strongman Saddam Hussein. All of that is documented here:
As Saddam Hussein rose to the Kuwaiti bait, US Ambassador to Iraq April Glaspie met with the Iraqi boss and told him that “we have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait.”4 This is consistent with entrapment—and many said so—because Bush Sr. then used Saddam Hussein’s attack on Kuwait—which the Iraqi boss believed had been greenlighted by Uncle Sam—as the excuse to launch the Gulf War to destroy and contain Iraq.
And thus, to strengthen Iran.
The whole thing was stated openly for those who were paying attention. “Strengthening Iran and containing Iraq” was Zalmay Khalilzad’s entire strategic philosophy (that’s his phrase I quoted), outlined in a position paper for Bush Sr.’s transition team5 and publicly defended in the Los Angeles Times.6 Khalilzad became Bush’s assistant undersecretary of defense for policy planning in 1990. The Gulf War followed. Though Khalilzad’s public argument had been a need to ‘balance forces,’ there was zero balance in the result: Iraq was destroyed and contained; Iran recovered.
All of this is once again neatly consistent with the MOR model. The Iran-Contra exposures made it much harder for the US bosses to send weapons to jihadi Iran, so they adapted. First, they supported a ceasefire to forestall an Iraqi conquest of Iran. When Khomeini’s refusal to sign the ceasefire risked ruining this Hail Mary move, the US bosses cracked the whip—Operation Praying Mantis—to produce the right incentive. Khomeini signed.
Then the US bosses went and fought a war against Iraq for him. They got Kuwait to provoke Saddam Hussein and then used his attack against Kuwait—which they had greenlighted—as cassus belli to take out Iraq and make jihadi Iran regionally secure.
How will the mainstream model explain the same evidence? I don’t know. And it gets worse for the mainstream, as you will now see.
Bill Clinton and the ayatollahs import jihadi terrorists into Europe
The next US president, Bill Clinton, in office from 1993, paid billions to continue Bush Sr.’s policy: to keep a destroyed Iraq contained while jihadi Iran recovered. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright explained on 60 Minutes that, to get this result, it was “worth it” to kill, via sanctions, half a million Iraqi children.
But perhaps even more interesting is what this administration did in Europe:
Bill Clinton teamed up with the Iranian ayatollahs to import jihadi terrorists into Europe to strengthen, in the Yugoslav civil wars, Alija Izetbegovic’s Bosnian Muslim movement.
Western audiences were gaslighted by Western officials and the Western media with the claim that Alija Izetbegovic—the leader of jihadism among the Bosnian Muslims—was supposedly a tolerant multiculturalist. But the Western intelligence services, authors of this lie, were not themselves confused.
After all, Alija Izetbegovic was famous—or infamous, rather—in Yugoslavia. Back in 1970, he had published a book titled Islamic Declaration or Islamic Manifesto (depending on the translation) where he expressed his admiration for the kind of system that Ayatollah Khomeini proposed, and he called for the ethnic cleansing of non-Muslim populations in Bosnia.
The content of Izetbegovic’s book, along with everything else about the former Yugoslavia, was represented in the Orwellian media (War is Peace…) as its precise opposite. On the authority of US Ambassador Warren Zimmerman, Westerners were told that “Izetbegovic … a devout Muslim but no extremist, … advocated the preservation,” with Catholic Croats and Orthodox Serbs, “of a multinational Bosnia.”7 Yet Izetbegovic was clear. In Islamic Declaration he wrote: “It is not in fact possible for there to be any peace or coexistence between ‘the Islamic Religion’ and non-Islamic social and political institutions.”8 Izetbegovic wrote ‘the Islamic religion’ in scare quotes because he did not accept that Islam be reduced to religion—Islam was a totality to him, and, true to the meaning of the word, all should submit to Islam. Nothing but Islam—as he explicitly said—could be tolerated, not in any crevice or wrinkle of human life. He therefore wanted in Bosnia—in Europe!—a purist Islamic state under Sharia law violently cleansed of non-Muslims.
In 1983, the Yugoslav government condemned Izetbegovic to 14 years in prison—later reduced to 5—for preaching civil war in Yugoslavia. Barely out of prison, Izetbegovic competed for the Bosnian presidency in the elections of 1990 and republished Islamic Declaration as campaign platform! He also began arming his followers. This naturally alarmed the non-Muslims in Bosnia and contributed to the outbreak of the Yugoslav civil wars.
In those wars, the Bosnian Serbs—and later all Serbs—were represented by international media as the alleged aggressors. The Serbs were supposedly genocidal racists who were exterminating Muslims, yet Fikret Abdic and his non-jihadi Bosnian Muslim followers, initially the majority, fought alongside the Serbs against Alija Izetbegovic. The followers of Izetbegovic, of course, were represented as the victims (as jihadi Muslims usually are in the mainstream Western media).
This is not the place to dispute the mainstream narrative on the Serbs; I have done so elsewhere. What matters here is that one anti-Serbian accusation in particular, the allegation of a massacre in Srebrenica, produced a scandal in the Netherlands, because the UN blue helmets supposedly protecting Srebrenica as a ‘safe haven’ were Dutch soldiers. When the Dutch government conducted an internal investigation, one covert aspect of the war was accidentally revealed: the US bosses had allied with Khomeini’s Iran to import jihadi terrorists into Bosnia!
This dark secret came to light in the work of Cees Wiebes, who was given unlimited access to the Dutch intelligence archives while preparing an intelligence and security addendum to the Dutch government’s massive 2002 NIOD report on Srebrenica.
Wiebes, C. (2003). Intelligence and the war in Bosnia 1992-1995: The role of the intelligence and security. Amsterdam: Netherlands Institute for War Documentation.
https://annas-archive.gl/md5/ae383670221e1cb89f758aa14603af1f
Wiebes found that Iran, Turkey, and various Islamist networks had participated during the Bosnian war of the 1990s in an operation to smuggle weapons and jihadi fighters. These had been flown into Croatia (often via Iran Air) and then routed to Bosnia through a Croatian pipeline. US intelligence was aware of these flights and allowed them to proceed by diverting NATO AWACS surveillance aircraft or ignoring suspicious activity. Wiebes also reported that American officials suppressed or downplayed UN intelligence reports documenting these Iranian shipments.
The US bosses—who pretended in public to be enforcing a UN arms embargo (they did enforce it against the Serbs)—allowed the ayatollah regime to arm Izetbegovic’s jihadi faction among the Bosnian Muslims.
Thanks to that joint US-Iranian program, jihadi terrorists from other parts of the world swelled the ranks of Alija Izetbegovic’s troops in Bosnia. Many were ‘Afghans’—a term used for foreign jihadi fighters who first cut their teeth in the CIA’s war against the Soviets in Afghanistan.
These revelations caused such a stir in the Netherlands that the Dutch government—implicated via its useless or complicit ‘blue helmets’ in Srebrenica—resigned!
About all this, there was one—just one—article (published in The Guardian) that forthrightly described “the secret alliance between the Pentagon and radical Islamist groups from the Middle East.” Calling a spade a spade, the title of that Guardian piece reads: ‘America used Islamists to arm the Bosnian Muslims.’ And the Guardian recognized the historical significance of the Wiebes report, calling it “one of the most sensational reports on western intelligence ever published.”9 Yet the media bosses somehow had no appetite for “the most sensational”; elsewhere, when these facts surfaced at all, it was in scattered and muted form—minimized and almost obliterated. The Guardian never mentioned it again. The story was buried.
What will the mainstream model say here? I don’t know. Some ad hoc move will no doubt be recruited. But there is no mistaking the double pattern that is emerging. To explain why the allegedly anti-jihad US bosses keep promoting jihadism, the mainstream model must heap on us a growing pile of… sui generis ad hoc moves.
By contrast, everything is once again easily consistent with the MOR model.
Under the MOR model, according to which the US bosses are pro-jihad totalitarian antisemites, to see them bring jihadi terrorists to murder Serbs in the former Yugoslavia is par for the course, though you need to know some history to fully understand it.
In World War II, the only ones in Europe who, en masse, gallantly defended their Jewish compatriots were the Serbs. They fought the German Nazis, the fascist Croatian Ustashe, allied with the Nazis, and the jihadi Muslims recruited for the Nazi SS by the Founding Father of the Arab Palestinian movement, Hajj Amin al Husseini. (This Serbian heroism has been completely submerged by mainstream historiography.)
Before that, the Serbs had been the historical defenders of Western Civilization against jihadi invasion via the Balkans, when, as farmer/soldiers settled in the Krajina or Military Frontier of the Austrian Empire, they halted the Ottoman advance. They were also key in the decisive defensive battle—led by the savior of the West, the Polish King John III Sobieski—at the gates of Vienna.
It makes perfect sense, under the MOR model, that antisemitic pro-jihadi US bosses would work hard to destroy the anti-jihadi heroes, the Serbs.
The Oslo ‘Peace’ Process—strategic Israeli territory for the jihadis
Something else that happened in the early 1990s was the birth—to great fanfare—of the so-called Oslo ‘Peace’ Process. Its purpose was to bring PLO/Fatah—a terror group created by the same Hajj Amin al Husseini, and the ‘legitimate’ representative of the Arab Palestinians—into Judea & Samaria (‘West Bank’) and Gaza as the governing authority for the Arabs living there. The longer-term goal was to build a PLO/Fatah State out of these territories, carved out of the Jewish State. The decisive push began with George Bush Sr. in 1991. Then Bill Clinton sealed it with the Oslo Accords of 1993 and 1995.
But why did the US bosses do this?
Mainstream model. The disturbances of the First Intifada revealed widespread Arab Palestinian suffering and broader Arab/Muslim ill-feeling toward Israel because of it. The best way to protect Israel was to bring about local and regional peace, in one blow, by giving PLO/Fatah—the ‘moderates’ among Arab Palestinian terrorists—their own State from territory carved out of Israel. Hence, Oslo.
MOR model. Oslo was a deliberate attack on Israel meant to give the Jew-killers a militarily strategic territory of the Jewish State. The First Intifada was the narrative excuse to get this done.
What was the First Intifada?
Begun in 1987 and lasting for several years, the First Intifada of the Arab Palestinians was represented to Western audiences as “a Gandhi-style campaign of civil disobedience in the West Bank [Judea & Samaria] and Gaza Strip.”
However, the Financial Times, which wrote those words, also conceded that
“Dr George Habash, leader of the revolutionary Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, seems an unlikely advocate for a Gandhi-style campaign of civil disobedience.”
Why unlikely? Well, because “Dr Habash’s PFLP,” an important group within PLO/Fatah,
“was behind a series of spectacular terrorist actions carried out in the early 1970s… includ[ing] the 1972 Munich Olympic Games massacre of Israeli athletes which outraged world opinion.”
Against the Financial Times’ absurd efforts to paint Habash as a principled non-violent demonstrator, a “Gandhi-style” leader, the proud terrorist, without betraying that he understood irony, explained forthrightly to the same newspaper that any restraint on his part was to avoid a backlash in Western public opinion, and that he reserved the right to use maximum violence.10
In fact, the First Intifada was plenty violent: Arab Palestinians were throwing rocks, Molotov cocktails, and other homemade explosives at both Israeli soldiers and civilians. But the image that stuck—because the media made it stick—was that of an Arab Palestinian child throwing a rock at a fully armed Israeli soldier. They were writing the story of a deserving Arab David fighting an oppressive Israeli Goliath. Orwellian inversion: War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, and Jewish victims are Nazi oppressors.
This was the key narrative shift needed to get Western ‘leftist’ audiences to side with PLO/Fatah and support the Oslo Process.
The cover of Ron Schleifer’s book, Psychological Warfare in the Intifada, shows you how this narrative was visually supported. You see there a throng of media photographers elbowing each other into a tight line so they can all capture in film an Arab Palestinian youth who waits until the photographers are all ready before throwing his rock. Had Western audiences witnessed that scene, they would have understood that the whole thing was staged, but all they were shown was a youth throwing a rock (from a great variety of angles!).
What Western audiences trapped in the managed reality couldn’t understand was that Israel was still David, for Israel was under attack from a vastly larger Muslim world that wished to extinguish it in genocide.
Neither did Western audiences understand that genocidal antisemitic jihadism, growing all over the Muslim world, had a strong ally in the US bosses, the world superpower, a fact that further underlined—and decisively—Israel’s status as the true David.
Or at least that is how the MOR model interprets the geopolitical landscape.
The mainstream model, by contrast, doggedly insists that the US bosses, strongly opposed to jihadism, are the best allies of Israel.
Can any evidence decide between these two models?
Certainly. PLO/Fatah—which the US bosses pushed hard to bring into the Jewish State—was co-architect of Ayatollah Khomeini’s jihadi Iran.
First of all, PLO/Fatah armed and trained Ayatollah Khomeini’s guerrillas in Lebanon during the 1970s, when PLO/Fatah had a State within a State there. Then, when the Islamic Revolution triumphed, PLO/Fatah helped Khomeini set up his own jihadi/terrorist institutions.
All of this is now entirely forgotten. Yet, when the Islamic Revolution happened, it was all explained on the front page of the New York Times—and then never mentioned again.11
What does it all mean? That—via the Oslo ‘Peace’ Process—the US bosses brought the Iranian ayatollahs into Judea & Samaria and Gaza (War is Peace).
Mind you, those Israeli territories had previously been identified by the Pentagon, in a secret study (since declassified), as militarily strategic. If they ever fell into enemy hands, concluded this study, Israel’s very existence would be threatened.12
US Intelligence and PLO/Fatah had coordinated these efforts. There is a PBS Frontline interview in which Vincent Cannistraro—a high-level CIA bureaucrat involved in the Contra aspect of Iran-Contra—let it slip that, during the years when Khomeini’s guerillas were getting their weapons and training in Lebanon, PLO/Fatah
“had been the protectors for the American diplomatic community in Beirut ... There was liaison with the PLO, and the Americans were depending on them for their security.”13
This practically screams that US Intelligence was keeping a close watch on the arming and training of Ayatollah Khomeini’s guerillas.
The clincher is that US President Jimmy Carter’s CIA was preparing Khomeini to replace the Shah, whom Carter removed. And then Carter sent his emissaries to Tehran to get the Iranian generals to stand down and allow Khomeini to take power (those naïve Iranian generals—so trusting of the US bosses—were subsequently purged by Khomeini). We discuss all that in depth here:
But there is more…
With the Oslo ‘Peace’ Process, the US bosses resurrected a defeated PLO/Fatah
This is a very important context, because it shows how outrageously out of their way the US bosses went to impose PLO/Fatah on Israel. To see it clearly, we need to rewind a decade before the first Oslo signature, to 1982.
In that year, Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin invaded Lebanon to deal with PLO/Fatah’s terror proto-State there, which had made a mess of Lebanon and was launching terror attacks against northern Israel. Begin essentially destroyed PLO/Fatah.
Yet the governing core of the terror group survived thanks to the intervention of US President Ronald Reagan, who stopped the Israelis and hurriedly organized a joint Franco-American military escort so the surviving remnant of PLO/Fatah could be safely transferred to its new home in Tunis.
For all practical purposes, though, PLO/Fatah had been defeated anyway. And they had lost the support of every Arab State—nobody wanted anything to do with them. Yet the US bosses were steadfast. In 1989 the US military and the CIA produced a policy proposal to create a PLO/Fatah State carved out of Judea & Samaria and Gaza.14 After which George Bush Sr.—a top leader of Iran-Contra—began threatening Israel with loss of economic and military support if Israel didn’t participate in ‘peace’ negotiations with PLO/Fatah.15 This culminated with Israeli prime minister Yitzhak Shamir showing up at the Madrid ‘Peace’ Conference of 1991.
Writing in the Washington Post in August of 1991, as Bush Sr. was increasing the pressure on the Shamir government to attend the Madrid ‘Peace’ Conference, Charles Krauthammer took note of what—to him, by the light of the mainstream model—was an incomprehensible pattern.16 His piece is worth quoting and commenting at some length: it’s like a verbal photograph.
“It is a rule in the Middle East: Israel wins every war, and the great powers step in to save the Arabs from the consequences of defeat. … The result of such rescues is more war. … In the 1982 Lebanon war, Yasser Arafat and the PLO were cornered in Beirut. The U.S. and other Western countries intervened to save them.”
As explained above, the public excuse for the Oslo Process was the First Intifada, as if that were a symptom of a malady that Israel was supposed to fix. But Krauthammer observed, in the immediate prelude to Oslo, that the First Intifada had in fact devolved into a civil war between Arab Palestinians:
“The Palestinians, exhausted and defeated, are demoralized, having nothing to show for three years of strikes and stone throwing. Worse, in a replay of the Arab uprising of 1936-1939,17 the intifada has turned most monstrously on itself. Far more Palestinians are dying at the hands of brother Palestinians than at the hands of Israelis.
‘Everyone remains terrified when he hears a knock on his door at night,’ writes the Palestinian newspaper Al Fajr. ‘This fear multiplies when he discovers that the knocker is not a[n Israeli] soldier but rather a masked [Palestinian] man, swathed completely in black from head to toe, armed with an ax or a sword, who requests that his host, or his son or daughter, come out ‘for only five or ten minutes!’ The next day, we hear on Israeli radio or television that a bound and disfigured body with signs of torture and stab wounds has been discovered.’
This is how the uprising (‘Intifada’) ends. Moreover, the Palestinians have not just lost the intifada. They managed to lose a second war this year, the Gulf War, their proxy war against Israel and the West. They staked their political and diplomatic capital on Saddam and lost again.”
Krauthammer was referring there to how PLO/Fatah—and the Arab Palestinians more generally—had supported Iraqi boss Saddam Hussein against the Arab coalition that fought him alongside the US bosses. At this time, therefore, the Arab bosses no longer supported either the Arab Palestinians or PLO/Fatah. In that context, and given that PLO/Fatah’s operatives were killing the very people they claimed to represent, why did the US bosses go out of their way to give PLO/Fatah its Phoenix-like rebirth from the ashes of defeat?
Krauthammer could not understand it.
“The Palestinians have just lost another war, and the United States is preparing another rescue.
(…)
In the normal course of events, a people having undone themselves yet again with their extremism, having so exhausted the patience of their friends and sponsors, having maneuvered themselves into political marginality, would have to make their own peace overtures to their enemies or fade away.
Instead, [State Department boss] James Baker and the [Reagan-Bush] U.S. administration come riding in to rescue the cause at its weakest, to keep the [Arab Palestinian] grievance alive and to advance its demands in an international forum. Shouting ‘land for peace,’ they single-handedly revive a cause for which, as the Palestinians will tell you, no Arab state—not Saudi Arabia, not Jordan, certainly not Syria—really cares. And they demand that Israel, the only organic American ally in the region (meaning a country that no coup could ever shake from its friendship with the United States), gamble its existence at a conference at which that slogan is to be the centerpiece.
Why? In part, as a reward—‘linkage’—for the Arabs who allowed us to go to war to save them from Saddam. This reasoning is even crazier than it sounds because the Saudis and gulf Arabs, after the Palestinians lined up with Saddam, have lost all enthusiasm for the Palestinian cause.”
If the mainstream model requires “reasoning [that] is even crazier than it sounds,” you should suspect that you need a new model.
If that were not enough, there is this:
PLO/Fatah, like the Iranian ayatollahs, had attacked the US!
To understand this additional—and fundamental—context, we must now rewind all the way back to 1973. This is two years after PLO/Fatah set up shop in Lebanon because they had been chased out of Jordan.
In 1973, PLO/Fatah took US Ambassador Cleo Noel and two other diplomats hostage in Khartoum, Sudan, demanding the release of imprisoned Arab Palestinian terrorists—including Sirhan Sirhan, who had assassinated the favorite to win the US presidential election: Robert F. Kennedy Sr.
(One is allowed to wonder: was RFK’s assassination a PLO/Fatah operation? And if it was, given the intimate covert relationship between PLO/Fatah and the CIA, was that assassination a CIA operation?)
After a standoff, PLO/Fatah executed Ambassador Cleo Noel and the other hostages. Yet, instead of destroying PLO/Fatah in reply, the US bosses protected the terrorists.
How do we know this? Certain internal documents of the State Department, discovered only by accident by historian Russ Braley in 2007, establish that State knew that the Black September Organization (BSO)—created to take credit for the murder of Ambassador Noel and other attacks—was a key component in the “Fatah … pretense of moderation.”18 In other words, Fatah had created BSO, keeping the linkage secret, so it would seem that Fatah had nothing to do with certain terrorist attacks. But said “pretense of moderation,” to work, required that the State Department keep quiet about what it knew: that BSO was Fatah. The State Department did precisely that.
I provide a full analysis of all that here:
This is the same structure that we saw in the Iran-Contra secret transfers of US weapons for Khomeini. Those secret weapons transfers, recall, happened while Ayatollah Khomeini murdered US soldiers and diplomats. Here, the US bosses protected the PLO/Fatah terrorists who
murdered US diplomats;
armed and trained Ayatollah Khomeini’s guerrillas;
helped Khomeini set up his terror infrastructure in Iran; and who
wish, like the Iranian ayatollahs, to destroy Israel in genocide.
And then, the US bosses worked via the Oslo Process to humble Israel, resurrect PLO/Fatah, and give these terrorists a militarily strategic territory of the Jewish State.
The question we asked in the Iran-Contra context is equally justified here:
What would spies of the Muslim terrorists in the White House have done differently?
The logical and semantic consequence of all this is the same.
If you say—in the teeth of this evidence—that the US bosses can be 1) enemies of jihad; 2) best allies of Israel; who 3) make of Israel’s security a top priority, then the key terms ‘ally,’ ‘enemy,’ and ‘priority’ become empty signifiers, devoid of meaning. They are no longer real words. You are mouthing but not speaking.
It is like Noam Chomsky’s famous example of linguistic non-meaning: Colorless green ideas sleep furiously. What does that say? Nothing. It feels like it says something, but it has no meaning. Lewis Carroll could make sublime poetry with such nonsense: ’Twas brillig and the slithy toves did gyre and gimble in the wabe… (opening line of The Jabberwocky). But we are not doing poetry here. In scientific theory this kind of thing is fatal. To have an actual theory, you must first be speaking.
Therefore, to be admissible for consideration, the mainstream model, as in the case of Iran-Contra, is semantically obligated to declare the Oslo Process impossible. Yet it happened.
We therefore have another dramatic fact!
In other words, Oslo—entirely by itself—suffices to falsify (refute) the mainstream model. How’s that for overkill?
And we are not done…
The US invasion of Iraq—a gift to jihadi Iran
The US invasion of Iraq, followed by immediate elections, was a gift to jihadi Iran, because Iraq is 60% Shia Muslim, and the new government in Iraq, after the elections, was dominated by paramilitary and political forces controlled by the jihadi Iranian ayatollahs.
The key takeaway:
The ayatollahs and the US bosses cooperated in the US invasion of Iraq;
This invasion essentially turned Iraq into the westernmost province of Iran.
And then, as we have documented in detail, the US bosses turned Iranian-controlled Iraq into the greatest beneficiary—on the whole planet—of US military spending. Iranian-controlled Iraq gets several times more US military spending than Israel.
Everything I just said is documented in the following piece:
![DOES THE US SUPPORT ISRAEL? OR JIHAD? A simple-minded look at the numbers [PART 2]](https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/$s_!QDts!,w_140,h_140,c_fill,f_webp,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep,g_auto/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F6eb51195-2f6d-456f-8fda-55def68eebcc_1962x1272.png)
Even if isolated from the rest of the evidence, I can’t see how the mainstream model could account for this. By contrast, this is all, once again, perfectly consistent with MOR’s model, which says the US bosses are pro-jihadi enemies of Israel.
Back to where we began: the US attacks on the Afghan and ISIS jihadis
Closing in on the present, I remind you of the evidence with which we began, in Part 1.
The US bosses have twice before fought wars against jihadi forces that they themselves created: the Afghan and ISIS jihadis.
The outcome, both times, as we explain in Part 1, was to strengthen jihadism and weaken the security of Israel.
This is now the third time, because, as we document in our Iran-Contra series, the Iranian jihadis whom the US bosses have just attacked are also a creation of the US bosses, as we document in our Iran-Contra series:
What will happen now?
It is rational to reason from experience. The rational prediction, therefore, is that the outcome will be the same as before.
The following saying is often attributed (apocryphally) to Albert Einstein:
Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
It is an excellent definition. Because insanity happens when people cannot make contact with reality. If you always get the same result when you do X, but you always think that something different will happen, then you cannot make contact with reality.
But it is not merely a question of behavior. We can generalize this to observation and theory as follows:
Insanity is observing the same causes repeating over and over again, always with the same result, and predicting, the n-th time, that the result will be different.
Why do people do this? Wishful thinking. Wishful thinking is a form of insanity. It short-circuits your ability to reason from experience.
And it is a form of narcissism. As if wishing something strongly enough will make the Universe bend to your wishes.
The Universe is what it is. You must adapt to it if you want to survive it. The first step, for any successful adaptation, is to recognize the Universe for what it is.
Ignorance has an identical effect here. If you don’t know history, then you have no actual ‘experience.’ You can’t see the pattern that would allow you to reason from the past to predict the future. This is not insane stubbornness, but once again you are not making contact with reality, because reality is the past: everything you can know about the Universe is in the past (the future hasn’t happened). Ignorance of history—plus wishful thinking—produces the same result as insanity.
So let us consider more history
Historian Edwin Black and others (including yours truly) have documented the ups and downs of the eugenics movement: the original ideology claiming biological superiority for the ‘Germanic race.’ This was a gigantic movement in the first half of the twentieth century—all over the West.
Guess who was leading this movement?
Eugenics was invented and supported by the British aristocracy. And it was enthusiastically adopted by the top billionaires in the United States—the same who backed FDR’s candidacy to the White House.
The Rockefellers, in particular.
These Anglo-American bosses considered themselves to be, as Anglo-Saxons, the purest Germans of the lot. The American billionaires poured a fortune to grow eugenics in the United States, where they made it legal—via a 1924 fraud in the Supreme Court (the case is Buck v. Bell)—to oppress anybody whom the pseudoscientific methods of the eugenicists identified as allegedly ‘inferior’ (not sufficiently ‘Germanic’!). According to Edwin Black’s prize-winning investigation, hundreds of thousands were forcibly sterilized, incarcerated, or unmarried by State officials—in the United States.
The same American billionaires poured another fortune to export eugenics to Europe, and especially to Germany, where it became Adolf Hitler’s German Nazism.
Edwin Black writes:
“… the [pseudo-]scientific rationales that drove killer doctors at Auschwitz were first concocted on Long Island at the Carnegie Institution’s eugenic enterprise at Cold Spring Harbor. ...[D]uring the prewar Hitler regime, the Carnegie Institution, through its Cold Spring Harbor complex, enthusiastically propagandized for the Nazi regime and even distributed anti-Semitic Nazi Party films to American high schools. ...[T]he Rockefeller Foundation’s massive financial grants [to] the German scientific establishment... began the eugenic programs that were finished by Mengele at Auschwitz.”
But the American eugenicists didn’t achieve this alone. Their allies in Great Britain did the most important geopolitical legwork. Neville Chamberlain—a major eugenicist, known today to have been a great fan of Adolf Hiltler—became the poster boy for the policy of so-called ‘appeasement’ that gave Hitler everything he needed to launch his conquest of Europe. But Chamberlain was hardly alone. And he and his pro-Nazi colleagues were not appeasing Hitler—they were assisting him.
When the German Nazis began to corral and kill the European Jews, the US and British bosses denied the Jews a safe haven.
Later, when it became clear that the German Nazis had lost the war to the Soviets, the US bosses finally engaged in a frontal war with the Nazis. But this was not to defeat the Nazis—the Soviets had already done that. This was to deny the Soviets control over Western Europe.
When the war, and the genocide we call the Shoah or Holocaust, had finally concluded, the US bosses absorbed the Nazi mass murderers to create the CIA, where US foreign policy is decided.
This was done in secret. In public, the eugenicist US bosses came out looking like they had ‘opposed’—rather than created, financed, supported, and then absorbed—the antisemitic forces that murdered the European Jews. That Orwellian inversion was in no small measure thanks to the Western media, which the eugenicists had corrupted even before the war, as we document here:
Notice this is the same pattern we have been pointing out with jihadism: the US bosses created an antisemitic force, then they themselves attacked it in order to appear as ‘defenders’ of the Jews. In this way, the US bosses gave the Jews, in the postwar, a false sense of security that has allowed the US bosses to prepare the next genocide.
Or so says the MOR model. The most succinct presentation of it is as follows:
MOR model. Whatever policies the US bosses set in motion—regardless of how they are publicly justified—seek to strengthen jihadism and to weaken the security of Israel. Why? Because the US bosses want an anti-Jewish genocide.
But why? Why are the US bosses hell-bent on committing anti-Jewish genocide?
Because the US bosses are totalitarian psychopaths who wish to destroy modern, democratic, Western civilization and enslave us all.
In order to get the result they want, they must kill the Jews.
In order to understand the importance of the Jews and Judaism to Western freedom, we must consider even more history to apprehend the pattern that has governed the entire experience of Western Civilization, from the beginning. One must truly grasp—grok—the eternal struggle between semitism (ethics) and antisemitism (evil) that has determined political outcomes for as long as cities have existed in Western Asia.
Coming back to the present, what remains, in Part 4, is to explain Donald Trump’s recent war against Iran.
Coming soon…
McGee, J. (1986, December 7). U.S. knew Iran ordered, funded Beirut bombings, intercepts show. Miami Herald.
https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP91-00587R000100200013-7.pdf
You may read a proper summary of this sequence in the Wikipedia article on Resolution 598.
Viorst, M. (1994). Sandcastles: The Arabs in search of the modern world. Alfred A. Knopf.
The transcript of the exchange between ambassador April Glaspie and Saddam Hussein was object of a sharp controversy in the United States after the Iraqi government published it. The New York Times reproduced the transcript in the following piece:
“CONFRONTATION IN THE GULF; Excerpts From Iraqi Document on Meeting With U.S. Envoy”; The New York Times; 23 September 1990.
http://www.nytimes.com/1990/09/23/world/confrontation-in-the-gulf-excerpts-from-iraqi-document-on-meeting-with-us-envoy.html?pagewanted=all
To read that transcript without a paywall, visit:
Dark Politricks. (n.d.). Transcript of meeting between Saddam Hussein and U.S. Ambassador. Retrieved March 29, 2026, from
https://www.darkpolitricks.com/p/transcript-of-meeting-between-saddam.html
“Shortly after Mr. Bush won the Presidency in November 1988, a State Department strategist drafted a paper for the President-elect urging that the United States take a fresh approach to the region. Mr. [Zalmay] Khalilzad advised in the paper that America’s new policy should concentrate on ‘strengthening Iran and containing Iraq.’ The paper was included in the State Department Policy Planning Staff’s official ‘transition book,’ which reviewed all the foreign policy issues the new President would soon have to confront.”
SOURCE: THE 1992 CAMPAIGN; Bush’s Greatest Glory Fades As Questions on Iraq Persist, The New York Times, June 27, 1992, Saturday, Late Edition - Final, George Bush, Section 1; Page 1; Column 5; Foreign Desk, 2554 words, By ELAINE SCIOLINO with MICHAEL WINES, Special to The New York Times, WASHINGTON, June 26
https://www.nytimes.com/1992/06/27/world/the-1992-campaign-bush-s-greatest-glory-fades-as-questions-on-iraq-persist.html
In a Los Angeles Times piece entitled “Iran Future As A Pawn Or A Gulf Power,” frets out loud that,
“The Iraqis devastated the Iranians toward the end of the war, capturing as much as half of the Iranian tanks, armor and artillery. Iraqi successes forced Iran to accept a cease-fire that Khomeini compared to drinking a ‘poisoned chalice.’ Iraq is now militarily dominant, with 45 battle-tested divisions against Iran’s 12, with even larger ratios of strength in tanks and aircraft. Tehran is looking for ways to overcome strategic inferiority and gain a degree of protection against Iraq. (…) A further weakened Iran would not increase stability but would increase Iraqi preeminence in the Gulf and make Iran more vulnerable to Soviet influence.”
Clearly, Khalilzad preferred that Iran become a Gulf power, not a pawn. And he obviously didn’t like Iraq being strong relative to Iran.
SOURCE: “Iran Future As A Pawn Or A Gulf Power”; Byline: Zalmay Khalilzad; Los Angeles Times July 16, 1989, Sunday, Home Edition Section: Opinion; Part 5; Page 2; Column 4; Opinion Desk.
https://latimes.newspapers.com/newspage/405568075/
Zimmermann, W. (1995). The last ambassador: A memoir of the collapse of Yugoslavia. Foreign Affairs, 74(2), 2–20.
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/europe/last-ambassador-memoir-collapse-yugoslavia
Izetbegovic, Alija. 1999 [1980]. Le manifeste Islamique (original title: Islamska deklaracija). Beyrouth-Liban: Éditions Al-Bouraq. (pp. 75-76; 81-82; 105; 118; 132)
Aldrich, R. J. (2002, April 22). America used Islamists to arm the Bosnian Muslims. The Guardian.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/apr/22/warcrimes.comment
“Dr George Habash, leader of the revolutionary Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, seems an unlikely advocate of a Gandhi-style campaign of civil disobedience in the West Bank and Gaza Strip” writes, the Financial Times. Why “unlikely”? Well, because “Dr Habash’s PFLP was behind a series of spectacular terrorist actions carried out in the early 1970s by an organization calling itself ‘Black September.’ These included the 1972 Munich Olympic Games massacre of Israeli athletes which outraged world opinion. He said the ‘methods and means’ practiced by the PFLP in the early 1970s had been discontinued because ‘it made us lose the support of international opinion.’ But he added that his organization ‘had the right’ to use all legitimate means, including armed struggle, to achieve its aims.”
SOURCE: Financial Times (London,England), February 26, 1988, Friday, SECTION I; Overseas News; Pg. 3, 933 words, ‘After The Violence Comes Civil Disobedience’, Tony Walker, Damascus.
On 12 February 1979, the New York Times reported:
“An exultant Yasir Arafat, leader of the Palestine Liberation Organization, proclaimed here today that the Iranian revolution had ‘turned upside down’ the balance of forces in the Middle East.
‘Today Iran, tomorrow Palestine,’ he said.
Mr. Arafat received a pledge from Ayatollah Khomeini that the Iranians would ‘turn to the issue of victory over Israel’ after Iran had consolidated its strength, the Teheran radio reported.
…Bantering and grinning, the guerrilla leader declined to furnish details about support the PLO had given to various Iranian guerrilla organizations, saying:
‘It is enough that we are here, and no matter how much we have helped we cannot offer as much back as the Iranian people have offered us. It is enough for us to be among the Iranian people.
Asked whether the Palestinian movement felt ‘stronger’ since the Iranian uprising, he said:
‘Definitely. It has changed completely the whole strategy and policy in this area. It has been turned upside down.’ ”
SOURCE: Arafat, in Iran, Reports Khomeini Pledges Aid for Victory Over Israel; Visit a Sign of Iran’s Sharp Turn; ARAFAT, IN TEHERAN, PRAISES THE VICTORS; By JAMES M. MARKHAM Special to The New York Times. New York Times (1857-Current file). New York, N.Y.: Feb 19, 1979. p. A1 (2 pages)
Three days later, the New York Times provided a bit more detail:
“The PLO announced today that its chairman, Yasser Arafat, had accepted an invitation to visit Teheran soon. It also said that followers of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini had seized the former Israeli diplomatic mission in Teheran, and the PLO had accepted an offer to turn it into a Palestinian embassy.
Wafa, the Palestinian press service, reported that the Ayatollah’s forces had contacted Mr. Arafat by telephone yesterday and proclaimed their solidarity and gave their thanks.
Palestinian sources said that Mr. Arafat’s group had sent arms to the revolutionary forces in the last four months and had trained Iranian guerillas since the early 1970s.”
SOURCE: P.L.O. Is Cool to Dayan Remarks; Statements Given Prominence; By MARVINE HOWE Special to The New York Times. New York Times (1857-Current file). New York, N.Y.: Feb 15, 1979. p. A12 (1 page)
“Memorandum for the Secretary of Defense”; Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol. 13, No. 2. (Winter, 1984), pp. 122-126.
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/pentagon.pdf
The PBS Frontline interview is here:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/target/interviews/
In 1989 the Washington Times published an article with the following headline:
‘RAND STUDY URGES BIRTH OF WEST BANK STATE’ (a)
This was in reference to a RAND study authored by Graham Fuller, “senior Middle East analyst for the CIA during the Reagan administration.”
What is RAND? To get a sense for that, consider that Donald Rumsfeld, who was Secretary of Defense in the Gerald Ford administration, and then again in George Bush Jr.’s administration, was chairman of RAND from 1981 to 1986. Simultaneously, during the years 1983-84, Rumsfeld was Ronald Reagan’s special envoy to the Middle East. Fuller’s RAND study was requested by then Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney.
Does all that make sense? Yes.
RAND was created as an autonomous division of Douglas Aircraft Company and “structured from the start to have access high in the Air Force chain of command.” Hatched in 1946, the idea behind ‘Project RAND’ was “to fund a autonomous division within Douglas Aircraft that would function as quasi-independently from both Douglas and the Air Force, but would be devoted to researching Air Force concerns.” As explained by General Curtis LeMay, “ ‘[w]e didn’t have any of the tools … [s]o the gimmick was to contract with a nonprofit organization to accomplish the task, and pay their bills, and let them go out in the open market and hire the talent they needed at the going rate.”(b)
In other words, RAND pretends to be somewhat autonomous, but it’s the Pentagon.
This is Graham Fuller’s RAND ‘study’:
Fuller, G.E. (1989). The West Bank of Israel: Point of no Return? Santa Monica: RAND Corporation.
https://www.hirhome.com/israel/RAND-Graham-Fuller-RAND-West-Bank-point-of-no-return.pdf
SOURCES IN THIS FOOTNOTE:
(a) ‘Rand study urges birth of West Bank state’; Washinton Times; November 8, 1989; Wednesday, Final Edition; Section: Part A; WORLD; Pg. A7; Byline: James M. Dorsey
https://www.hirhome.com/israel/RAND-Graham-Fuller-RAND-West-Bank-point-of-no-return.pdf
(b) Amadae, S. M. (2003). Rationalizing Capitalist Democracy: The Cold War Origin of Rational Choice Liberalism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. (pp32-33)
On 6 December 2001, US Ambassador to Israel Daniel C. Kurtzer gave a talk at the BESA Center, Bar Ilan University, entitled ‘The American Role in the Oslo Process.’ The US ambassador began, remarkably, by denying that the US had played a role in the Oslo process:
“In dissecting the American role in Oslo, I think the title of my talk should be ‘The American Perspective on Oslo,’ since the Oslo process took place largely outside the direct purview of the United States.”(a)
In fact, the Oslo process could not have happened without the October 1991 Madrid talks, and the US all but forced the Israelis to go to Madrid, as I review below.
On April 19, 1991, The Independent wrote this:
“FATIH JABAR [an Arab whom they interviewed] had some advice for James Baker, the US Secretary of State, who flew to Israel last night to continue his peace-making efforts. ‘Stop financial aid to Israel for six months, and order the Israelis to pull out from the occupied territories,’ he urged, sipping coffee in the cool lounge of his home in this quiet village south-west of Nablus. ‘They’ll have no choice but to comply.’
...While [Israeli Prime Minister] Mr [Yitzhak] Shamir continues to indicate support for a regional conference, there is no hint of a new willingness on his part to make meaningful concessions at the negotiating table. If Mr Baker is to shift the Israeli prime minister, it seems he might have to take Mr Jabar’s advice and hit Mr Shamir in the pocket, conceivably by withholding the $10bn (pounds 5.6bn) in housing loan guarantees Israel needs to build homes for Soviet immigrants. For if there is one issue that concerns the prime minister as much as his commitment to the retention of the territories, it is the absorption of Soviet Jews. Only if this process is threatened, might he consider what is, for him, almost the unthinkable - an eventual pullout from parts of the occupied territories.”(b)
And take Jabar’s advice they did! The Independent was prophetic. This is what the Times of London wrote only a few days later:
“...American officials, including William Brown, the ambassador to Israel, and Senator Robert Dole, have warned Israel that it will not receive a sympathetic hearing in Washington if it does not co-operate with the administration’s peace plans for the region following the Gulf war.”(c)
Specifically, the US threat against Israel became the following:
“The message to the Shamir government is clear enough: Unless the Israelis agree to a freeze on settlement activity in the occupied territories before and during the [‘peace’] conference, there will be no U.S. loan guarantees to help finance the resettlement of Russian immigrants. Implicit in the warning are two further threats: If Israel remains obdurate, hold the conference without it and let the political chips fall where they may; and further down the line, diminish or cut off the annual U.S. grants and loans to the Jewish state. Whether one thinks the Bush-Baker preconditions are justified or not, and given a visible decline in pro-Israel sentiment in Congress and the country, it is obvious...that the president can make the loan guarantee warning stick.”(d)
In other words, the American message to the Israeli prime minister Yitzhak Shamir was: go to Madrid and negotiate, or else no money for resettlement of Russian immigrants, and no further grants or loans to the Jewish state: we will choke you off. Moreover, if you don’t go, said the US to Shamir, we will hold the conference anyway, and “let the political chips fall where they may.” The US had threatened to decide the future of Israel without Israel—the way Hitler and Britain had decided the future of Czechoslovakia without representatives of that country—“if Israel remain[ed] obdurate.”
There can be no question on this point: the US was passionately interested in making the Madrid talks happen, and flexed all of its diplomatic muscle.
The Washington Post, August 2, 1991, Friday, Final Edition, EDITORIAL; PAGE A25, 923 words, Road to Nowhere, Charles Krauthammer.
This was also published in Rocky Mountain News, and you may read it online here:
What Krauthammer says here is absolutely true. In the Arab Revolt of 1936-39, Hajj Amin al Husseini, founding father of the Arab Palestinian movement, killed about 400 Jews and several thousand Arabs. It is always like this: the so-called ‘Arab leaders’ are enemies of their own people, routinely sacrificing them in order to kill Jews. This is the madness that the ‘pro-Palestinian’ Westerners have been endorsing. We have an analysis of this pattern, with evidence, here:
WND Exclusive: “New evidence Arafat killed U.S. diplomats: Nixon historian finds CIA report on Fatah link to 1973 murders”; World Net Daily; March 18, 2002; 1:00 a.m. Eastern; By Joseph Farah.
https://web.archive.org/web/20081001165044/https://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=26856
I still encounter people that are entirely ignorant on Balkan history. US media praised and told the truth about Mihailovich--until late in WWII, when the US decided to back Tito (and help hide the Vatican's crimes). Time Magazine has made their 'vault' harder to search, but the truth can still be found: https://time.com/archive/6765936/the-eagle-of-yugoslavia/
Another classic. How you remember the detail is in itself remarkable. The only loose thread is that Trump can't save the Ayatollah's as they seem to have a low life expectancy. If the IRGC now controls Iran, then is crime 'in charge', or do you still see religion regaining the controls somehow?