« John Carter of Mars - a review by Alan Farrell | Main | "Red Fields" by Jason Poudrier »

23 March 2012


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


I shut up again, promised, but this needs correction:

In this book's suggested reading list, the book by Hadassa Ben-Itto, which was advertised as the latest study on the Protocols, at least over here, was listed justifiably among the: Litarary adaptations, semi-fictional and pseudo-scientific accounts.

Initially I used text links, then realized they wouldn't work so I cut out too much.


now my correction disappeared again. :(

In this book's suggested reading list, Hadassa Ben-Itto's book, which was advertised as the latest study on the Protocols a couple of years ago, at least over here, was listed justifiably among the: Litarary adaptations, semi-fictional and pseudo-scientific accounts.

I shut up again, and let grown ups discuss matters, promised. ;)


I want to apologize for refering to the Shoah/Holocaust in my last post on the original Goldberg thread. I do not believe that America could ever go all nazi; I just wanted to paint a worst-case picture, to goad American Jews into working against the False-Flag option. My rhetoric was insensitive, and I'm sorry.

Habakuk said it well:

"The empowerment of Jews, which is been regarded as perfectly natural and unobjectionable among almost everyone over the past decades, would be come, in some measure, into question."

...but MRW has a point, too. Britain is a civilized country, except for the "football" fans; in America, "football" fans are the majority. Many American Jews enjoy positions of power, privelege and respect, with great influence on our finance (NYC), policy (DC), and culture (Hollywood). That infleunce, and those positions, would all be risked by a False Flag operation against the US by Israel.

Creepy thing is, "real" Israelis might view this as a feature, not a bug, imagining Israel as the only place where Jews "belong".

PS: Col Lang: "Goldberg Variations" is brilliant.


Funny how the idea of a "Jewish" state is accepted with such blind acceptance in this country, and the thought of a "Muslim" state such terror. That people don't see the seeds of destruction in these religious based states is a sad commentary on the understanding of human nature.

Outside of a cafeteria approach, IMHO the three ME based religions are not a good fit for today's societies. The study of ethics and morality by the great writers is positive but the claims to true communion and special tribal status with god is evil.

FB Ali

Even on SST one seldom comes across such a well-written comment, both in content and composition!

Babak Makkinejad

David Habakkuk:

Ambassador Jenking, just like Ambassador Freeman or Ambassador Limbert, are powerless to affect a corecive Anglo-American policy that aims to destroy the Islamic Republic.

The US and UK diplomatic staff cannot affect policy; that much is clear.

If they could, they would have concluded a reasonable deal with Iranians at any time during the last 8 years.

What they think is evidently irrelevant.

I do not believe anyone accepts the "ignorance" explanation - certainly no judge would accept an ignorance defense in a criminal case.

This Spanish Diplomat at Spain's embassy in Tehran was relating to an Iranian that he (the diplomact) expected the Iranian economy to collapse by 2010.

Had Iran done anything against Spain over the last 500 years that would cause such joy in her diplomatic staff at the prospect of the collapse of an economy on the other side of the world?

Did Jews, AIPAC, Israel caused him to be that way?

You are spending too much time an effort on the role of Jews, Israel etc. while completely ignoring the hard men in US, UK, France etc. that twice - in less than 6 yeras - brought the world unto the edge of disaster.

Babak Makkinejad

I agree with your assessment except two items:

1. Mr. Obama's government has been the instigator of the latest march to war. He, in effect, threatened Iranians with war. [I do not know what outcome he expected; regime surrender or regime implosion]. What he got was the Iranian's declaration that they are willing to go to war. That stopped Mr. Obama dead in his [Iran policy] tracks.

2. Ayatollah Khamenei has publicly stated the Iranian military response doctrine: proportionate repsonse.

And Iranian leaders have shown more rationality, in my judgement, that Israeli or US or UK or assorted other European leaders.

Babak Makkinejad

Britain "was" a civilized country.

Now, you have the culture of lower classes, their coarseness, and their ill-mannered mores being adopted - as a kind of adolescent rebelliousness - by the Middle classes.

There is no one in England who is younger than 30 and has any manners - excepting a few English and Inidans from good families.

And then there is the fact tha tabloid papers is where the English get much of their news and information [imagine in US people reading the National Enquirer to do so.]

And I must say that I do find it ironic that a country with diaster cities such as Liverpool does her best to inflict the same on Iran.

Babak Makkinejad

Iran lacks the power of retaliation - both hard and soft which accounts for "The widespread lack of any sense of danger".

You have to make a complicated argument, along the lines of Sarajevo, Archduke, etc. , which the typical blustering man is too impatient or too cognitively challenged to grasp.



The author approves your comments when he or she has the time to do so. This is not a machine approval. Have patience. pl


Excellent analysis, Mr. Habakkuk. My conclusion (applies to lots of events): "Nobody knows anything." —William Goldman

Pirate Laddie

Good question. It depends, I guess, upon where on the food chain the evangelicals find themselves. Bull Goose preachermen like John Hagee, et. al., have drunk deeply from the Zionist cup and seem willing to damn any&all that aren't full-bore supporters of Israel.
Among their followers, I think many are grudgingly supportive of Israel in the belief that it doesn't cost them much to bet on what appears to be (up 'til now) a winning steed. How long it would take such folks to revisit their positions, and whether it would matter, given the likleyhood that things would have to go pretty far south before they think about it, is key. I figure most would remain in the camp of Zion until convinced that it was their particular oxen (or red heifers) being led up to the altar.
The most interesting are those "true believers" who built their post-Rapture mansions in a belief in the progression: Zion, anti-Christ, Shoan II, Armageddon, Last Judgment and Rule of the Lamb. They seem most likely to remain true to the cause, regardless of how hairy things get. One concern is whether there are enough folks of this mindset to actually influence the unrolling of the scroll.

N M salamon

Interesting evolution with respect to possible anti jewish reaction over the year. I commend you on an excellent analysis of this problem. I reflect that about a year ago on this site I opined that the elevation of the Iran conflict will create strong anti jewish reaction in the USA.
Learned people riduceled my notion, and promoted the concept that the priamry reaction to armed conflict with Iran would cause anti Muslim reaction.
Today's reality is that there is a strog promotion by some to be anti Muslim and very supportive of Israel by this same group. These misguided individuals have no concept of the hardship that will befall the world were the war with Iran curtail hydrocarbon export and or production among all but the most affluent, thus they fail to connect the dots as MRW has done above.
Perhaps the major problem of AIPAC is that the membership is too affluent [aside from non-Jewish Rapture supporters] and thus their analysis is faulty due basing it on erroneous axioms [e.g. Business as Usual notwithstnading oil price problems].
Again thank you for your cogent and literal analysis


Babak, do you think the real reasons are economic? Israel acts as cover for larger Western interests?

That was my impression could be the case after reading the interview with Keith Weissmann by Robert Dreyfuss:


But I find it hard to believe that Europe would support the embargo--which is nothing but the road to war--without US pressure. But why do you think AIPAC is the biggest force behind all these laws?

The second to last article on Zion Square is by Tritan Parsi. A wise man unfortunately without power base.


Sanctions Make War More Likely, by Trita Parsi Mar 23, 2012 2:00 PM EDT


No Sir, that's not what I mean. Some years ago, I could still see my comment after I had posted it. Now I sometimes push "post" expecting a verification code to appear, but nothing happens. Instead the comment simply vanishes. If there was no verification code, I am not sure if it was posted. The message disappears now, no matter if with or without verification, before it was visible but on my screen with a note saying: pending approval, or something similar; at least as long as I didn't shut the laptop down or emptied its cache or memory.

I am aware that your approval is a completely different matter.

But don't worry, I shut up again. This was really interesting. Very good contribution by David.

David Habakkuk

Babak Makkinejad,

The point I was trying to make about the 'widespread lack of any sense of danger' was not to do with the attitudes of the 'typical blustering man'.

Commenting on the early stages of the most recent inquiry into our debacle in Iraq, that conducted by Sir John Chilcot, a very fine foreign correspondent, Patrick Cockburn, wrote as follows:

What is so striking about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is that the British foreign policy establishment seems to have lost its sense of what is dangerous and what is not. It may be that following dutifully behind the Americans is so ingrained that the capacity for independent judgement has atrophied.

(See http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/patrick-cockburn-britains-ignorance-of-iraq-is-already-apparent-1826920.html )

That incidentally, is one reason why I do not write about British foreign policy. There is, currently, no independent British foreign policy on issues such as Iran, and also Israel/Palestine (although on the latter there are some faint signs of an aspiration to take an independent position.)

As 'zanzibar' pointed out recently, American foreign policy is currently largely dominated by domestic political considerations. Of these, the power of the Israeli lobby is one of the most salient. The tail wags the big dog, and the little dog runs after it, yapping enthusiastically: even when the tail is directing the big dog in the direction of a quicksand (to mix metaphors.)

The role played by British intelligence, and elements in the British media, in aiding and abetting the most destructive elements in the American polity, is a separate issue, although of course an important one.

As to Baroness Ashton, she is very typical 'New Labour'. An apt description comes from the maverick journalist Rod Liddle:

Never elected by anyone, anywhere, totally unqualified for almost every job she has done, she has risen to her current position presumably through a combination of down-the-line Stalinist political correctness and the fact that she has the charisma of a caravan site on the Isle of Sheppey.

(See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catherine_Ashton )

And the contemporary Tory Party is not really better. Accordingly, Ashton can be expected to share a common characteristic of the contemporary British political elite -- that they will inflict massive harm on others, even where doing so not only does not benefit their own country, but actually endangers it.

As to the state of Britain, what you say has a substantial measure of truth, but the reality is more complex. There has been a general decline in civility over the past decades. However, the pattern is erratic, and very ill-mannered, and well-mannered, children can be found in families of very different backgrounds. And indeed, there are signs of a reaction, in people of very diverse backgrounds, in favour of good manners.

As to Liverpool, you will find a very unpleasant drugs-and-guns culture, which is new, and a great deal of drunkenness, which has always been there, and also many very respectable people living well-ordered lives. And there are also many people who are betwixt and between.

I know a certain amount about the city, as I trained as a journalist there, and my sister and brother-in-law, both devout evangelical Christians, have lived there for many years.

Babak Makkinejad

Why aren't these clueless men fired?

Since they are not fired, forced to resign, or kicked "Upstairs",One has to conculde that the hard-men of Col. Lang in UK - their planners as it where - are set on policy course the success of which they are nearly assured.

And I do not buy this sorry tale of the "tail waggin the dog".

The Israeli Lobby cannot account for a coercive diplomatic Iran policy of US and EU which brought the world to edge of war during the pat 6 weeks.

This wa a Trans-Atlantic project with full and careful coordination between the 2 sides of the Atlantic.

Why are Britain and United States so eager to reprise their sordid role in 1953 Iran yet again?

Not because of Israel, the Jweish Lobby, Shoah, etc.

But because, in my opinion, they find it in their interests.

Babak Makkinejad

What alternative do you have in mind whih could, even in principle, deal wth the facts of Death and the Crooked Tomber of Mankind?


This is an excellent summation.

It is terrifying that a nuclear first strike is even a possibility.

A conventional Israeli strike would similar to the Doolittle Raid in WWII. No real direct effect except that nuclear strikes could end the war again.

No matter how it is spun by the media, an Israel Iran War will escalate. A regional war will threaten the existence of an apartheid Jewish State in the center of an Islamic Middle East. In the end, it is not unreasonable to expect the use of nuclear weapons if the existence of Israel is threatened.

Not to mention, the collapse of the economy due to the shortage of food and energy caused by the cut off of 20% of the traded oil that comes from the Middle East.

An Israeli strike at Iran could be catastrophic for us all.



I don't think America would "go all nazi" either.

But remember Ann Coulter's remarks about Muslims and Arabs following 9/11? Her vile, low-rent, incendiary stuff? Substitute the word Jews for Muslims and Arabs, and that's what you could be looking at as a consequence of exploding gas and food prices, as well as Habakkuk's insight into questioning dual loyalty in high places. If it goes to world war, and bombs here--the Sarajevo, Archduke trigger--you will hear calls for Israel's, not Jews' demise. But American Jews will suffer the loss of prestige and everything that goes with it. They will be hated, not hunted.

Babak Makkinejad

The real reason, in my opinion, is the desire of US and EU for the destruction of the enhanced Iranian strategic autonomy (in US it is known as Strategic Defiance) since US destroyed the Ba'athist Iraq.

AIPAC would not have been able to carry out its agenda, in my opinion, had the US and EU planners not already decided on using the Iranian nuclear file as a wedge for regime change in Iran.

For, in my opinion and based on public Internet data, US and EU could have begun resolving the Iranian nuclear case when US NIE on Iran came out in 2007.

At that time, the Iranian President observed: "A few more such things and we will not have any problems."

One wonders where we all would have been had a different policy been adopted in 2007.

I think Dr. Parsi is behind the course of events: war became a real possibility when the combined US-EU coercive diplomacy against Iran - instigated by Mr. Obama - the Peace and Change President - forced Iranians to declare their readiness for war earlier this year.

The Russian Federation had to publicly state that attack on Iran was considered an attack on the (vital) interests of the Russian Federation.

It was around that time when the US-EU leaders were jolted, in my opinion, from their sleep-walking towards war.

Mr. Obama lined up his political and military officials (a few from among the retired ranks) to make the following points:

1- Iran does not have a nuclear bomb
2- Iran is not working on a nuclear bomb
3- There (military) power to prevent Iran from building a nuclear bomb - if she so wishes - does not exist
4- War with Iran is bad for the United Stated
5- Iranian leaders are rational.

This was, in my opinion, an utter and abject policy failure.

Threatening war, then backing down, and then basically confirming what Iranians had been saying all the time.

Had Mr. Obama made those 5 points at the start of his presidency and sent men such as Ambassadors Burns and Limbert - with full authority - to negotiate with the Iranian Government, I am certain that a reasonable deal would have been inked by 2009.

In an analogous manner as the 2007 Iran NIE, when a certain road was not taken, Mr. Obama and EU leaders took a different road in 2011 which brought the world to the edge of war.

One has to ask: "What was the point of this exercise?"

What amazes me is that no one has been fired in US or EU over this.


Mr. Habakkuk, on the question of an independent foreign policy, I'm afraid you will find Britain, America, Australia and Canada "joined at the hip" and what America wants, it mostly gets. Before anyone gets annoyed, there are benefits for the junior partners in this arrangement.

Simple perusal of Wikileaks demonstrates the processes of influence, annoying the American Government can have consequences far beyond defence and intelligence sharing - trade and finance being the most obvious. The connection between the military industrial complex and successive administrations is a Two way street and on occasion business will do what is asked of it.

I am aware that one Australian Prime Minister (Bob Hawke) denied Washington over the use of Australian real estate for MX missile testing, and awoke one morning thereafter to find the Australian dollar in free fall on Wall Street.

Currently The City and Wall Street have mutual interests that would make an independent British foreign policy over something like Israel and Iran highly problematic.

David Habakkuk

Babak Makkinejad,

I must point you towards what 'zanzibar' said in response to comments of mine on an earlier thread.

I spend half the year overseas and what I have noticed is that the people that I interact with in Europe, Asia and Latin America have this firm belief that US policy makers are always acting strategically to further US economic interests. They have a hard time relating when I posit that it's domestic politics that drives decision making.

And the point that there was no coherent conception of American strategic interest underlying policymaking in the U.S. was also made, if my memory serves me right, by Colonel Lang in an exchange with F.B. Ali.

As to Britain, I really am in a position to know. The current affairs and features department of London Weekend Television, where I worked in the late Seventies and early Eighties, was one of the nurseries of 'New Labour'.

Perhaps the most significant architect of 'New Labour', Peter -- now Lord -- Mandelson, who taught the Labour Party 'spin doctoring', was, briefly, my researcher. The head of the department, John -- now Lord -- Birt -- went on to do 'blue skies thinking' for Tony Blair. Current affairs was run by Barry Cox, who was Tony Blair's next door neighbour in Islington, and ran his campaign to be leader of the Labour Party.

If -- as you doubtless have not -- you have contacts in the Iranian government apparatus -- could you please pass on a message from me. People like Mandelson, Birt and Blair have minds which are well-attuned to political intrigue in the centres of power in London. (Just as people like Richard Perle or Paul Wolfowitz have minds well-attuned to political intrigue in Washington.)

However, when it comes to any kind of wider world, they are utterly at sea. They are as incapable of grasping the undercurrents in British or American politics at the grassroots, as they are of making sense of the behaviour of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Whatever their crimes and follies, old-style British imperialists were quite commonly not absolute idiots. The coup against Mossadeq was largely organised by C.M. 'Monty' Woodhouse, later MP for Oxford, my home town. At the end of his life, I think, Woodhouse had doubts about the wisdom of what he had done.

And indeed, in my view, he certainly should have done -- in that one of the lessons of the coup he organised was that an enthusiasm for 'comprador' elites can blow up in your face. But whatever else may be said against him, Woodhouse was not a simple idiot, like Baroness Ashton, or devoid of education, as she is.

People like Mandelson and Birt, and Perle and Wolfowitz -- or Richard Haas -- can be adept at manipulating politics inside a 'cocoon'. But when it comes to understanding the world outside this 'cocoon'. they are liable to be utterly at sea.

After all, if this was not so, would Baroness Ashton ever have been appointed to the position she holds -- or would some American and British Jews be incapable of realising that they are playing with fire?


Babak Makkinejad,

The Israeli Lobby cannot account for a coercive diplomatic Iran policy of US and EU which brought the world to edge of war during the pat 6 weeks.

Sure it can, at least here. Let me cite two from memory:
What to do with Iran? We must coordinate independent strike with US, prepare for Iranian response
General Oded Tira, December 2006

The Case for Bombing Iran
Norman Podhoretz — June 2007
with its famous tagline: "As an American and as a Jew, I pray with all my heart that he [Bush] will."

The Dec 2007 NIE put a huge kink in the swing of this cudgel. But it doesn't take a rocket scientist to research that the only group since the 2007 NIE pushing for war with Iran--listen to Netanyahu at the UN and in our congress, or reread Goldberg--is the Israel Lobby and its hundreds of supporting and approving groups.

But because, in my opinion, they find it in their interests.
A country doesn't have an interest as a single separate entity; it's people do. The reigning class here wants to get re-elected and the Lobby has the dough--especially with US taxpayer money and tax-free donations going to Tel Aviv then back here via the PM's office, the old trick a few US rabbis copied--to concentrate the muscle on the reigning 535. If you were in charge of their campaign, who would you target?

Babak Makkinejad

I never claimed "economic" interests and have expressed my opinion regarding US-EU interests in my comment above to LeNader.

In regards to absence of "grand strategy" when you know the actual people who are forging various policies; I must say that I am with those who finds patterns among apparent chaos.

That is, there is an absence of chain of explanations from individuals' actions to the collective's actions.

The absence of an explanation does not negate the empirical macro-level observations; in my opinion.

What emerges from your postings about UK - and by implications about US - is this: clueless men leading nuclear-armed states in pursuit of foreign adventures of dubious value or longevity.

It seems to me, then, if we take your line of reasoning, the first order of the day is to disarm UK lest her venal and stupid leaders trigger a global nuclear war.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

February 2021

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Blog powered by Typepad